Ram Temple construction dates to be announced this year: Sakshi

Bengaluru, Apr 5: Fake news spreads faster and more easily nowadays through the internet, social media and instant messaging and such news about the COVID-19 pandemic have been labeled a dangerous “infodemic”.

These messages may contain useless, incorrect or even harmful information and advice, which can hamper the public health response and add to social disorder and division.

Asking people to avoid fake news on COVID-19, Hemant Nimbalkar IPS, IGP and Additional Commissioner of Police (Administration), shared a photo on his Twitter page and wrote, “One Mask For Ear Too"

Mangaluru, Jan 13: A truck parked at the site of protest against the new citizenship law and National Register of Citizens (NRC) at Deralakatte on the outskirts of the city was charred down to ashes after it was set on fire by miscreants, police said here on Monday.

Police said that Deralakatte Citizenship Protection Committee had organised a protest rally against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) here on Sunday. After the rally concluded, a few unidentified miscreants set the vehicle on fire.

The incident resulted in chaos, causing panic among the locals who informed the police immediately.

Condemning the incident, the local unit of Popular Front of India has claimed that the incident was an attempt by saffronist goons to disrupt peace and trigger communal riot in the region. It has urged the police to nab the accused immediately without yielding to any political pressure.

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.