Not keen to keep Dr Zakir Naik, says PM Mahathir as Malaysian Hindus demand his deportation

Bengaluru, Jul 5: Day after a Covid-19 patient died on a road near his home waiting for an ambulance for nearly two hours, Bengaluru civic body commissioner on Saturday offered his unconditional apology for the tragic incident.

Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike (BBMP) Commissioner BH Anil Kumar met the family of the 55-year-old Covid-19 victim who died unattended on the roadside on Friday and apologised on behalf of the BBMP.

BH Anil Kumar also appealed to citizens to not stigmatise coronavirus patients and their families.

"Met the family of the Covid victim in Gavipuram who was left unattended on the roadside. Offered an unconditional apology on behalf of the BBMP as our staff could have handled the situation in a better manner. Appeal to citizens not to stigmatise Covid-19 patients & families," BH Anil Kumar said in a tweet.

In one of the pictures tweeted by BH Anil Kumar, he can be seen standing with folded hands in front of the deceased Covid patient's family.

The 55-year-old man was getting treatment at his house after he developed breathing issues. However, his condition worsened after his Covid-19 report came positive. His wife then informed the hospital and requested an ambulance.

His family members decided to take him to the hospital by an autorickshaw as the ambulance was getting late. However, the man collapsed on the street as soon as he stepped out of his house.

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.