Last date to enroll for Manipal Arogya Card is July 31

Bengaluru, Apr 10: Renowned ophthalmologist and Narayana Nethralaya Chairman Dr K Bhujang Shetty today advised those wearing contact lenses to switch to eyeglasses as a preventive measure.

“Though the facial mask is mandatory as a preventive measure against the dreaded Coronavirus, not many know that the virus can also enter the body through eyes. Wearing glasses or spectacles reduces the spread of the virus,” Dr Bhujang Shetty said.

Although it is more likely that people may catch Coronavirus infections through mouth and nose, there are chances of the virus also entering through eyes. “In a day, humans tend to touch their face and eyes almost 20 times an hour knowingly or unknowingly. Users of contact lenses end up touching their eyes and face frequently, increasing the risk of infections. Therefore, it is advisable that they switch to eyeglasses until the situation improves”, according to a release here on Friday.

New Delhi, Mar 30: Congress MP Rajmohan Unnithan on Monday approached the Supreme Court seeking directions to open the Karnataka-Kerala border to allow movement of ambulances and other emergency vehicles for the transport of essential items to Kerala.

Unnithan, who is an MP From Kerala's Kasaragod constituency, filed a plea seeking direction to Karnataka to open the borders with Kerala and in particular Kasargod-Mangalore border at Talappadi.

The petition sought directions to Karnataka to allow the movement of ambulances, emergency vehicles, trucks and other vehicles carrying essential and non-essential items to Kerala. It also sought to stay the blockade imposed by Karnataka with its border states.

The plea also sought directions to Karnataka to register an FIR and constitute a special investigation team (SIT) under the supervision of this court to enquire against the concerned authorities including the police officials whose action led to the death of two citizens.

It said that the imposition of such a blockade at a time when the supply of commodities is itself hit hard and when a medical emergency has plagued the entire country is a clear violation of Articles 21 and 19(d) of the Constitution.

"This blockade has also resulted in cutting off the essential lifeline of National Highways and State Highways and major District Roads leading to the State of Kerala which has resulted in the shortage of supply of essential and non-essential items to the State of Kerala leading to shortage supply of food and medical supplies," the plea said.

"This ill-planned and dangerous blockade has claimed the life of a 70-year-old woman who was denied entry into Karnataka even for the purpose of urgent medical treatment which was only available in the medical hub of Mangalore. This is a clear case of violation of the right to life with dignity by the state as citizens are made to die on the roads because of the action of the state which is in total disregard to Article 21," it added.

This comes as the country is under a 21-day lockdown to prevent the spread of coronavirus, which according to the Ministry of Health and Family Affairs has claimed the lives of 29 people and infected a total of 1071 people as on Monday morning.

Bengaluru, Feb 14: In a major embarrassment to the police, the Karnataka High Court has termed as illegal the prohibitory orders imposed under Section 144 of CrPC by the City Police Commissioner in December 2019 in the light of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in Bengaluru.

The orders were passed “without application of mind” and without following due procedures, the court noted. Giving reasons for upholding the arguments of the petitioners that there was no application of mind by the Police Commissioner (Bhaskar Rao) before imposing restrictions, a division bench of the High Court said he had not recorded the reasons, except reproducing the contents of letters addressed to him by the Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs). 

The state government had contended that prohibitory orders were passed based on reports submitted by the DCPs who expressed apprehension about anti-social elements creating law and order problems and damaging public property by taking advantage of the anti-CAA protests.  

The High Court bench said the Police Commissioner should have conducted inquiry as stated by the Supreme Court to check the reasons cited by the DCPs who submitted identical reports. Except for this, there were no facts laid out by the Police Commissioner, the court said.

“There is complete absence of reasons. If the order indicated that the Police Commissioner was satisfied by the apprehension of DCPs, it would have been another matter,” it said.  

“The apex court has held that it must record the reasons for imposition of restrictions and there has to be a formation of opinion by the district magistrate. Only then can  the extraordinary powers conferred on the district magistrate can be exercised. This procedure was not followed. Hence, exercise of power under Section 144 by the commissioner, as district magistrate, was not at all legal”, the bench said. 

“We hold that the order dated December 18, 2019 is illegal and cannot stand judicial scrutiny in terms of the apex court’s orders in the Ramlila Maidan case and Anuradha Bhasin case,” the HC bench said while upholding the arguments of Prof Ravivarma Kumar, who appeared for some of the petitioners.   

Partly allowing a batch of public interest petitions questioning the imposition of prohibitory orders and cancelling the permission granted for protesters in the city, the bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed that, unfortunately, in the present case, there was no indication of application of mind in passing prohibitory orders.

The bench said the observation was confined to this order only and it cannot be applicable in general. If there is a similar situation (necessitating imposition of restrictions), the state is not helpless, the court said.