As PM, I met Geelani 6 times to solve Kashmir issue, reveals Deve Gowda

Mangaluru, Mar 14: Following the avian flu outbreak in neighboring Kerala, authorities at Pilikula Biological Park in Moodushedde, on the outskirts of the city, have taken all precautionary measures to prevent the death of birds in the park.

Park Director H J Jayaprakash Bhandari said that "the behaviour of the birds is being monitored near open water sources on the premises'.

Though no deaths were reported in the Zoo or on lake premises, the staff continue to maintain a strict vigil on open water sources like lakes. He said the Park was being sanitized.

Hubballi, Jan 6: Elected representatives of the BJP, Congress and JD(S) on Sunday decided to sink their differences and fight unitedly for Karnataka’s rightful share in the Mahadayi and Kalasa-Banduri water dispute with Goa.

The meeting convened by JD(S) MLC Basavaraj Horatti here saw participation of BJP ministers Prahlad Joshi and Jagadish Shettar, Congress and JD(S) lawmakers, among others.

After a 70-minute closed door meeting, MLC Horatti told reporters that they discussed the water dispute in detail and decided to take steps based on inputs from legal and technical experts on the rightful apportioning of water. “Today, we took the first big step towards the overall development of the region, unencumbered by political divisions,” he said.

Though the air was filled with a sense of jubilation as the issue had united seemingly hostile political parties on one side, a few activists expressed disappointment that the meeting failed to set a timeline to resolve the dispute.

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.