No role in Mahadayi bandh; will support the cause: CM

Bengaluru, Mar 10: With concerns growing by the day, the Karnataka government is readying three more labs to test throat swab samples.

Currently, only two labs in Bengaluru — National Institute of Virology and Virus Research and Diagnostics Laboratory (VRDL) lab attached to Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute — are categorised biosafety level 2+, a requirement for coronavirus tests.

Now, the government is working on upgrading three more labs, one each in the government medical colleges at Hassan, Mysuru and Shivamogga. “The labs will be ready within one week,” the authorities said.

Currently, the labs are testing only throat swab samples of suspected patients and taking 24 hours to give the results. “A patient’s blood sample will be collected only if he or she tests positive for covid-19 infection in the first throat swab sample.

While earlier the state would send all samples of suspected coronavirus cases to NIV, Pune, the two labs were upgraded to biosafety level 2+ in mid-February.

Kasaragod, Apr 2: Kerala reported 21 new cases of coronavirus with eight from the worst affected Kasaragod district, taking the tally of active patients to 256, Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan said on Thursday.

Besides, Kasaragod, five positive cases have been detected from Idukki, two from Kollam and one each from Thiruvananthapuram, Pathnamthitta, Thrissur, Malappuram, Kozhikode and Kannur, he told reporters here.

At least 1.65 lakh people are under survillence in the state, 643 in various hospitals.

Presently, 256 people are under treatment for the virus in the state where two fatalities have occurred, Vijayan said.

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.