Car falls from bridge, five of family killed

New Delhi, Feb 29: The arsonists, who were allegedly hired by the pro-CAA politicians in Delhi to unleash violence against Muslims, did not even spare the residence of Border Security Force personnel Mohammed Anees.

While the jawan, who has spent three years guarding the borders along Jammu and Kashmir, had hoped that his job profile mentioned on the nameplate hung outside their two-storey house would discourage the vandals, he was proved wrong. 

The nameplate on house number 76 in Khas Khajuri Gali clearly mentioned it was the property of a security force personnel who protects India’s borders from foreign invasions. Yet, it was burned down on the afternoon of February 25.

First, the ruthless goons set the vehicles parked outside the jawan’s house on fire, then they torched his home. Stones were also pelted at his house amid slogans of “idhar aa Pakistani, tujhe naagarikta dete hai” (Come here Pakistani, get your citizenship). 

Apart from Anees, his father Mohammed Moonis, 55, uncle Mohd Ahmed, 59, and 18-year-old cousin Niha Parveen were in the house. Sensing what was about to go down next, they all escaped from the house, and were helped by paramilitary troops.

Charred remains of the house now stand where the house was till three days ago. In the two lanes of Khajuri Khas near Anees’s house, 35 houses were set on fire. 

The loss suffered by the BSF soldier’s family was perhaps greater as they had kept all their life’s savings inside: two weddings in the family were to take place in the next three months.

Niha Parveen was to get married in April and Anees himself was to get married the following month. “All the things we collected all our life, jewellery – two gold necklaces, silver jewellery, it is all gone,” the family said.

“We used to buy jewellery on instalments… used to give money every month and collected this jewellery,” they said. Rs 3 lakh in cash for the wedding arrangements also got burnt along with other valuables and all their belongings.

Khajuri Khas is a Hindu-majority area, but Anees’s family says no neighbour of theirs was involved in the attack. “People came from outside.” Instead, their Hindu neighbours were asking the rioters to leave. They requested them to leave and helped douse the vehicles on fire.

Bengaluru, Feb 18: Deputy chief minister Laxman Savadi was elected to the legislative council on Monday and although it was a done deal that he would win, a vote from across the aisle spiced up the election.

Counting was conducted soon after ballots were cast and Savadi polled 113 of the 120 votes cast, including the vote of disgruntled JD(S) legislator GT Devegowda. Seven votes were declared invalid. Members of the two opposition parties — Congress and JD(S) — abstained from voting.

The election was necessitated following the resignation of Rizwan Arshad of the Congress. Rizwan resigned after he was elected to the legislative assembly from the Shivajinagar constituency in the assembly bypolls held for 15 seats in December last year.

BR Anil Kumar, who was initially promised the support of both Congress and JD(S) was supposed to contest as an independent candidate. However, as both parties refused to support him at the last minute, he withdrew, paving the way for Savadi’s victory.

The BJP has 117 members in the 225-member assembly, but N Mahesh of the BSP and two independents, H Nagesh and Sharath Bachchegowda, besides GT Devegowda also voted, taking the total electorate to 120 (including the speaker). BJP’s SA Ramadas did not turn up because of health reasons.

“I would like to thank all those who were responsible for my victory. Special thanks to leaders of my party and chief minister BS Yediyurappa, who gave me the opportunity to be the BJP candidate,” said Savadi.

Winning this council election was crucial for Savadi to retain his ministry as he was not an elected member of either of the houses. Rules mandate that a non-member must get elected either to the assembly or council within six months after taking over as minister. February 20 was the deadline for Savadi, who had lost 2018 assembly polls from Athani, to get elected.

Officials in the assembly secretariat said seven votes were invalid because voters had wrongly marked their choices on ballot paper. According to norms, a voter has to mark numerical one, two and three against the names of the candidates in order of preference. Marking only numerical one is allowed. However, six ballots had a tick mark, while a voter had registered a cross mark. Since it was a secret ballot, it was not known who the MLAs were whose votes were invalid.

“The ballot papers bear serial numbers and they are randomly distributed. It is virtually impossible to say who a voter cast his or her vote for,” said assembly secretary MK Vishalakashi, the retuning officer for the bypoll.

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.