Prakash Raj slaps legal notice on Pratap Simha over defamatory post

Kasaragod, Apr 7: The new COVID Hospital at the Kasaragod Medical College has started functioning, Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan said on Monday.

The new administrative block of Kasaragod Medical College was converted into a COVID-19 Hospital for providing better treatment facilities to the coronavirus patients, the Chief Minister said while addressing a press conference at the Government Secretariat.

Stating that the hospital was converted to a Corona Care Hospital in just four days, he said 200 beds and 10 ICU beds are now ready.

Thiruvananthapuram, Jun 15: Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan''s daughter Veena married top DYFI All India president Mohammed Riaz at the chief minister''s official residence in the presence of selected guests.

Riaz and Veena became husband and wife at a solemn function held under Covid protocols with not more than 50 people present.

This was the second marriage for both, as their first ones ended in divorce.

Riaz has two children, while Veena has a son from their respective previous marriages.

Riaz is a lawyer by profession and had contested the Kozhikode Lok Sabha seat in 2009 but lost to the Congress'' M.K.Raghavan.

Veena runs her own software company in Bengaluru.

While the marriage has already been registered recently, the wedding event was a closed door affair, with just very close relatives of the couple besides a few senior party colleagues of Vijayan.

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.