Oppose as much as you can; we will implement CAA: Amit Shah

Bengaluru, Feb 17: Leader of Opposition in Karnataka Assembly Siddaramaiah on Monday demanded that forest minister Anand Singh should either be expelled from the Cabinet or assigned a different portfolio.

This comes amid a number of cases, pending against Singh, including those under the Karnataka Forest Act.

"How can we expect justice from Anand Singh who has been made forest minister and is accused of (illegal mining)? We demand that he should either be dropped out of the state Cabinet or at least his portfolio be changed," Siddaramaiah told media.

Earlier in the day, Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa allocated portfolios to the 10 newly inducted ministers in his Cabinet.

As part of state Cabinet's expansion, 10 MLAs including Ramesh Jarkiholi, Anand Singh, K Sudhakar, and BA Basavaraja took oath as ministers at Raj Bhawan in Bengaluru on February 6.

Bengaluru, Apr 12: As many as 17 new cases of coronavirus were confirmed on Sunday in Karnataka, taking the total number of infected to 232, the health department said.

This includes six deaths and 54 discharges.

According to the bulletin issued by the health department, six cases were reported from Vijayapura, four cases in Belagavi, three each in Bengaluru city and Kalaburagi and one in Mysuru.

Among the 17, four people are suffering from Severe Acute Respiratory Illness (SARI) -- two of whom are in Bengaluru and one each in Vijayapura and Kalaburagi, the department said.

Following the sudden spurt in cases in Vijayapura, the department has initiated contact tracing.

Ever since the outbreak of COVID-19, Bengaluru continued to top the list with 76 cases, followed by Mysuru with 48 cases, Belagavi with 14 cases, Kalaburagi with 13 cases and Dakshina Kannada with 12 cases.

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.