Owaisi trashes PM Modi's claim on Haj journey of Muslim women without mahram

Bengaluru, May 3: Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa requested his Maharashtra counterpart Uddhav Thackeray to release six TMC water from his state's reservoirs to rivers in Karnataka to meet acute drinking water shortage in North Karnataka.

Yediyurappa pointed out that the North Karnataka districts, namely Belagavi, Vijayapura, Bagalkot, Kalaburagi, Yadagiri and Raichur are facing acute shortage of drinking water due to onset of summer during early days of March this year.

"I request you to kindly direct the concerned authorities to release 3 TMC of water from Warna/Koyna reservoirs to Krishna river and 3 TMC of water from Ujjaini reservoir to Bhima river on humanitarian grounds for drinking purpose," Yediyurappa said in his letter.

He reminded Thackeray that even in the past the Maharashtra government had released water from its reservoirs to meet the drinking water needs of both human beings and livestock in drought-affected areas of Karnataka.

Mangaluru, June 13: Commending the Karnataka government move to ban the online classes for children up to Standard 5, Mangaluru MLA U T Khader has demanded to impose ban on all education apps that offer online coaching to school children.

"I welcome the government’s decision of banning online classes up to class 5. I would like to know why education apps of corporate companies are allowed to continue when schools are banned to conduct online classes. Why the government could not ban those education apps that offer online classes?” the former minister questioned.

He warned that private schools in the state may commence their online classes through such apps of corporate companies if the present situation continues.

Not all parents in the state can afford buying smart phones required for online classes, he said. "Only 30% of the school children in the state have access to smart phones. Most of the parents cannot afford to buy smart phones for their children. Government should take into consideration the mental stress of academically brilliant children among poor families. Those children may go under depression when they do not have access to online classes. The government can cancel some of the schemes like distribution of bicycles and reserve such funds to find solutions to the problems poor children face at present,” Khader 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.