A rainy welcome for Miss World Manushi Chhillar in Dakshina Kannada, Udupi

Bengaluru, Jan 8: The Karnataka government on Tuesday decided to adopt a no-fail approach for Class 7 examinations for government and private schools following the state syllabus.

The report card of a student doesn’t carry ‘pass’ or ‘fail’ remark, but points to his or her strengths and weaknesses in each subject in the exams, which will now be called Common Evaluation Exam.

The quality cell of the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board (which conducts SSLC exams) will prepare question papers, which will be evaluated at the district level by government and private schoolteachers. The Class 7 exams will be held in March.

The Common Evaluation Exam follows the Continuous Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE) currently practised under the Right to Education Act. “The formative and summative assessments (tests, projects and quizzes) will be held as usual,”KG Jagadeesha, commissioner of public instruction, said.

Edu dept to launch helpline by March

For the March exam, summative assessment 2 will be held with half the syllabus. Other modalities (exam duration and total marks) will be announced next week,” said KG Jagadeesha. The CCE system will continue for classes 8 and 9. The government hopes the exam and subsequent interventions in classes 8 and 9 will boost students’ confidence for crucial board examinations.

Minister S Suresh Kumar said, “More than an exam, it’s an evaluation of a child’s knowledge. The Belagavi division has done something similar. The Kalaburagi zone found mathematics and science were areas of concern; language was an issue in Urdumedium schools.” The minister said zilla panchayat CEOs have observed that intervention should start from class 8. “Keeping this in mind, we’ve started necessary preparation for class 7 exam ,” he added.

The education department will start a helpline by March for students, teachers, school managements and educationists to 11 raise problems on day-to-day issues.

Bengaluru, May 26: The Karnataka high court has rejected bail to a software engineer who was arrested after his sarcastic Facebook post urged people to spread coronavirus by sneezing in public over two months ago.

Mujeeb Mohammed was sacked by Infosys from the post of senior software engineer after his arrest on March 29.

Justice KS Mudagal observed the investigating officer's report and the case diary prima facie show though Mujeeb was well educated and employed, he uploaded messages which are likely to cause disharmony and panic, and are hostile to humanity at a time when the world is facing the pandemic.

The judge noted that the records indicate Mujeeb has six bank accounts, stayed in Bahrain and Kuwait for some years, was influenced by religious fanatics and anti-national ideas and that he had shared a Pakistan WhatsApp number to someone over information about Islam. The National Investigation Agency is probing his links.

Mujeeb, who is in judicial custody now, has been booked under sections 153A, 505, 270 and 109 of IPC.

His counsel submitted the maximum punishment under 153 A of IPC (causing enmity) would be three years and for other offences, it's even less. He also stated the petitioner would abide by the conditions to be imposed by the court.

However, the government pleader said probe provided leads on the petitioner's links with unorganised terrorist groups and it has to be investigated further.

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.