Police commissioner P S Harsha appeals to people to send videos of riots for investigation

Bengaluru, Feb 3: A wave of dissatisfaction has hit the six-month-old BJP government against the backdrop of chief minister B S Yediyurappa's announcement to induct 13 aspirants in the second cabinet expansion on February 6.

In the first cabinet expansion, the chief minister had inducted 17 ministers on August 20, 2019.

Among the 13, ten will be those defectors from Congress and the JD(S) who were disqualified earlier and won the assembly by-election in December last year.

The rest will be the 'native BJP leaders', as deputy chief minister Govind Karjol put it.

Speculations are rife that Mahadevapura MLA Arvind Limbavali, Hukkeri MLA Umesh Katti and C P Yogeshwar, who had lost to H D Kumaraswamy from Channapatna assembly segment,would be inducted.

If Yogeshwar is included in the cabinet then he will bethe second minister after Deputy chief minister Laxman Savadi who had lost and yet made it to the cabinet.

The possible induction of Yogeshwar and Savadi, who was made deputy chief minister despite losing the assembly elections, are also a "reason" for discontent in the BJP.

Hectic activities began in the power corridor and MLAs started forming groups to impress upon the chief minister to include their members in the ministry.

While one group was from the "Kalyana Karnataka" region, the others were the defectors who will be excluded in the cabinet expansion.

A few MLAS from 'Kalyana Karnataka' region or erstwhile Hyderabad-Karnataka region comprising six districts, met at the Legislature Home and held a meeting.

The meeting was led by Shorapur MLA Narasimha Nayak akaRaju Gouda and Honnalli MLA M P Renukacharya.
The MLAs of the Kalyana Karnataka region were unanimous that their backward region should get representation in the cabinet.

Later, Gouda met the Chief Minister and requested that their region be given adequate representation in the cabinet, which is lacking development.

Talking to reporters, Gouda said, "We had given representations to all the MPs, MLAs and the chief minister. Today also we all had a meeting and later called on the Chief Minister requesting him to make any MLA from our region a minister."

He said any imbalance in cabinet expansion will cause trouble to the MLAs from Kalyana Karnataka region.

"If you make the defeated candidates ministers then include 120 people in the cabinet," an aggrieved Gouda taunted.

Renukacharya too echoed the same sentiments.

"If you give preference to the defeated candidates then what will happen to those who won the election? Where should the winners of election go? We emphasise upon giving preference to the winners."

On the other hand, the defectors who jumped the Congress and the JD(S) ship and helped form the BJP government too had a meeting in Bengaluru, said BJP sources.

They were unanimous that not only the 11 MLAs who won theelection be made ministers but also A H Vishwanath and M T BNagaraj who had unsuccessfully contested the assembly by- polls from Hunasuru and Hoskote on a BJP ticket.

Vishwanath, who was quite vocal on Sunday for dropping his name, was mellowed down on Monday after meeting Yediyurappa.

However, his insistence for getting a cabinet berth remained intact.

"I did not make any proposal before him and will not do it in future because he (Yediyurappa) knows what has to be done,"Vishwanath told reporters after meeting the chief minister.

When he was reminded of Yediyurappa's statement that therewere legal complications in making him a minister, Vishwanath said, "This government has legal experts and the advocate general. They will speak."

Amid speculations that Athani MLA Mahesh Kumathalli may not get a cabinet berth in the reshuffle, the defected MLAs led by Gokak BJP MLA Ramesh Jarkiholi, had a meeting to decide their future strategy, said party sources.

Currently, there are 18 ministers, including the chief minister, in the cabinet, which has a sanctioned strength of 34. Sixteen berths are vacant.

The cabinet expansion exercise will be a delicate task for Yediyurappa as he has to ensure adequate representation for various castes and regions.

The ministry already has eight Lingayats, including Yediyurappa; three Vokkaligas; a Brahmin; three SCs, two OBCs and one ST.

Opposition parties have been critical of the BJP and Yediyurappa over the delay in the cabinet expansion, alleging he is weak and his administration has collapsed.

Reacting to the cabinet expansion, former chief minister Siddaramaiah quipped, "A drama is taking place. Let it happen on February 6. Afterwards we will see what all happens."

Udupi, July 23: A 70-year-old woman, who had tested positive for coronavirus, passed away last night in Udupi taking the district’s covid-19 death toll to 12.

The deceased was a resident of Chantharu in Brahmavar. She was an asthma patient. For past few days, she was suffering from cold and fever. 

Her throat swabs were sent for testing and the report came positive last evening. She breathed her last at home even before being shifted to hospital. 

The woman has two daughters and both of them are married. Due to the fear of virus, none of her relatives were ready to touch her body.

Meanwhile, Dr Premananda K of district health department reportedly sought help of the activists of Popular Front of India (PFI). 

Under the supervision of PFI’s medical wing in-charge Muneer Kalmadi, the body was shifted to the district hospital with all necessary precautionary measures.

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.