Poll code violation: BJP, Congress file plaints with EC against each other

Bengaluru, Mar 12: Days after a video of an elephant being shot in Bandipur National Park went viral on social media, officials said that they have removed a staffer and initiated action against an employee of the Karnataka Forest Department in the matter.

According to officials, the incident took place on March 7.

"We have removed Rahim, temporary staffer, and initiated action against Umesh, a permanent employee of the Karnataka Forest Department, after an internal enquiry," Bandipur field director T Balchandra said.

While Rahim is said to have shot the charging elephant, Umesh reportedly made the video and shared it on social media.

Kasaragod, Apr 1: Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Tuesday announced a special action plan for Kasargod district where more people testing positive to the Coronovirous.

"The northern most district of the State has become the hot bed of Coronavirus infection with the maximum number of positive cases confirmed in Kerala," the Chief Minister told a press conference at the Government Secretariat.

“A special action plan will be implemented in Kasargod. Currently, Kasargod district has the maximum number of positive cases and also the highest number of people under hospital observation. Data from the panchayats in the district will be used to test people with symptoms and also to identify people in contact with them," he 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.