Ram Sene chief Pramod Muthalik likens Gauri Lankesh to a dog

Dubai, Jul 9: Air India Express has opened ticket bookings for flights from India to the UAE from July 12 to 26. The carrier posted the announcement on its social media pages.

“INDIA to UAE - Flights are open for sale! Bookings could be made through our website (http://airindiaexpress.in), call centre or authorised travel agents. Visit http://blog.airindiaexpress.in for more details,” the budget airline tweeted.

A clause mentioned in the flyer attached to the post added that only UAE residents with permits to return from India can book flights.

Thousands of Indian expats have been waiting to book flights back to the UAE after being stuck home for about four months due to the COVID-19 travel restrictions.

Vande Bharat Mission flights

Under the fourth phase of Vande Bharat Mission, as many as 104 flights will be operating between UAE and India. 

The Air India announced this on Twitter under a post “#FlyAI : Important Information for ICA approved UAE residents who wish to travel to UAE on Vande Bharat Mission flights.”

A flyer attached to the post addressed passengers who wish to travel to UAE on flights being operated under Vande Bharat Mission by Air India and Air India Express in pursuance of agreement between Civil Aviation authorities of India and the UAE.

“AI and AIE operating evacuation flights to Indian citizens from the UAE to India will carry ICA approved UAE residents (returning to the UAE from India) on the outward journey from India to the UAE.”

“On the India-UAE journey, all these flights will carry only those passengers who are destined for the UAE.”

“This arrangement will be operational for a period of 15 days from July 12 to 26,” the airline added.

While most of the Vande Bharat flights are operated by AIE, a few flights from Sharjah are operated by Air India.

Bengaluru, Jan 21: Karnataka Chief Minister's political adviser MP Renukacharya has courted controversy yet again with his remarks targeting the Muslim community at a pro-CAA rally in Karnataka on Monday.

Addressing a rally in support of the new citizenship law, the BJP lawmaker accused Muslims of collecting weapons in mosques instead of praying. "There are few traitors who sit in a masjid and write fatwas. They collect weapons inside the mosque instead of praying. Is this why you want a Masjid," Renukacharya said on Monday.

Renukacharya said he won't hesitate to use the money allotted to Muslims for Hindus. "I will resort to such politics in my taluk where the money allotted for Muslims can be used for Hindus. I will put you [Muslims] in your place and show what politics is," said Renukacharya, who is a close aide of CM BS Yediyurappa.

This is not the first time a Karnataka BJP leader has made communal remarks targeting the minority community. Earlier, BJP MLA Somashekar Reddy had made controversial remarks at a pro-citizenship law protest in Ballari when he asked those opposing the Citizenship (Amendment) Act to think of the "consequences" if the majority community members hit the streets against them.

The MLA had said, "If you do any drama, then if 100 per cent people come, understand what will be your situation. Congress people are lying to you, believing them you are coming on streets. We are 80 per cent, you are 17 per cent, if we react, what will be your situation? Be careful," Reddy had said.

Following outrage, a case was filed against Somashekar Reddy for alleged provocative speech targeting those protesting against the amended citizenship law.

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.