Puttur: Temple invite without Muslim DC's name distributed

Mangaluru, Jan 23: Members of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) on Thursday held a protest against the Karnataka government, accusing it of shielding Aditya Rao, the main accused of planting an improvised explosive device (IED) at the Mangaluru airport on January 20.

Meanwhile, the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Court has sent the accused Aditya Rao to 10 days police custody.

Earlier on Wednesday, the Bengaluru Police said that the procedure is being followed to hand-over to the Mangaluru Police a suspect who surrendered before it two days after planting an improvised explosive device (IED) at the Mangaluru International Airport.

The IED was later defused in an open field by the personnel of the bomb disposal squad.

Bengaluru, May 15: With lockdown-3 coming to an end in a couple of days, Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa on Friday expressed confidence about the Centre announcing relaxation to "many things" after May 17.

"After May 17, the government of India is going to relax so many things, let us wait for it," he said in response to a question from reporters here. "According to me they (centre) will relax everything.... maybe for things like five-star hotels and others they may not give permission for the time being, but for other things they are going to give permission. Let's wait and see."

The nationwide lockdown was initially imposed from March 25 to April 14, then extended to May 3 and again to May 17 to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus. Karnataka Tourism Minister C T Ravi on Wednesday had hinted at the state government permitting the opening of gyms, fitness centres and golf courses, also certain hotels for local tourism purpose after May 17, when the third phase of the COVID-19 induced lockdown comes to an end.

The Muzrai department (in charge of the administration of temples) was also planning to have a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in place, that needs to be followed at temples once they are opened for the public, officials have said. They said the opening of temples for the public is however subject to the MHA (Ministry of Home Affairs) guidelines.

During the recent video conferencing Prime Minister Narendra Modi had with Chief Ministers of various states, Yediyurappa had proposed doing away with district wise colour-coding and instead advocated strict cordoning of containment zones to control the spread of the pandemic.

He had pitched for resuming all economic activities in stand-alone establishments while continuing the restrictions on malls, cinema halls, dining facilities and establishments with centrally controlled air-conditioning. The CM had suggested that 50 to 100 meters around known clusters be declared as containment zones and commercial activities, including public transport, to be allowed in non- containment zones.

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.