PM Modi's words are worth nothing, hits out Siddaramaiah

Mumbai, Feb 3: Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray has accused the BJP-led central government of siding with Karnataka in the Supreme Court over the Belgaum border dispute between Karnataka and Maharashtra.

"I am committed toward a unified Maharashtra... Whatever is happening in Belgaum is shocking. I will meet the committee looking after this matter. The central government is a guardian of all states and is expected to be unbiased towards all states, but it is shocking that Centre is taking sides with Karnataka in Supreme Court for last the five years. This is really shocking," Thackeray said in an interview with Shiv Sena mouthpiece Saamana.

On December 7 last year, Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray had chaired a high-level meeting over the border dispute between the two states.

It was decided in the meeting that attempts will be made to get fast track hearing on the border issue in the Supreme Court.

Earlier on January 19, Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut had said that Belgaum border dispute between Karnataka and Maharashtra is a long-pending dispute but can be resolved if Union Home Minister wants.

"If Home Ministry can resolve Kashmir issue and abrogate Article 370 then I think this border issue can be resolved too if Amit Shah wants. The matter comes under the Home Ministry. It is a long-pending issue. He should pay attention to this too," he said while speaking to ANI in Belagavi.

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.