Rebel Congress MLA, who was declared JD(S) candidate for assembly polls, joins BJP

Bengaluru, Mar 31: Persons under home quarantine are directed to send their selfies to the Karnataka government in every one hour, failing which they will be shifted to the state quarantine centres, said Medical Education Minister Dr K Sudhakar on Monday.

"All persons under home quarantine shall send their selfies to the government on a mobile application in every one hour. Failing to do so, teams will reach such defaulters and they will be liable to be shifted to quarantine centres made by the government," he said.

The home quarantine persons will be given an exception for taking selfies during the sleeping time from 10 pm to 7 am.

"There will be an exception in this order for sleeping time, from 10 pm to 7 am," he said.
The total number of COVID-19 cases in Karnataka climbed to 88 on Monday after five more persons tested positive for coronavirus.

Of the five, one is a close contact of an earlier confirmed patient and the others are workers of a pharmaceutical company in Mysuru, from where a person had tested positive, the state health department said.

The country is under a 21-day lockdown to prevent the spread of coronavirus, which according to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, has infected 1,251 people so far.

Kanpur, Jan 1: In a seemingly bizarre development, the IIT in Kanpur has set up a panel to decide whether the poem "Hum dekhenge lazim hai ki hum bhi dekhenge", penned by Faiz Ahmad Faiz, is anti-Hindu.

The panel has been set up in response to complaints filed by a faculty member who claimed that the students, during a protest, sang this poem which was anti-Hindu.

The poem reads thus -- "Lazim hai ke hum bhi dekhenge. Jab arz-e-Khuda ke kaabe se. Sab bhut uthwaye jayenge, Hum ahl-e-safa mardood-e-harm. Masnad pe bithaye jayenge. Sab taaj uchale jaenge. Sab takht giraye jayenge. Bas naam rahega Allah ka. Hum dekhenge."

It was the last line that has turned into a bone of contention. Translated into English, it means, 'When thrones will vanish, only Allah's name will remain' -- implying the misleading translation by the professor.

The poem had been written by Faiz in reference to military dictator Zia-ul-Haq in 1979 and was against the military rule in Pakistan. Faiz had left leanings and was an atheist. He was known for his revolutionary writings that kept him in jail for several years.

It may be recalled that the IIT-Kanpur students had taken out a peaceful march on the campus on December 17 in support of the students of Jamia Millia Islamia and during the march, the students sang the Faiz poem.

According to IIT Deputy director Manindra Agarwal: "In the video, the students are seen reciting the Faiz poem which can also be perceived as being anti-Hindu.

The IIT faculty member, in his complaint, has alleged that the students made anti-India and communal statements during their demonstration in solidarity with the Jamia students.

The complaint was based on two lines of the poem, which have obviously been misinterpreted -- "When all idols will be removed, only Allah's name will remain."

The faculty member has stated that "organisers and masterminds must be identified and expelled immediately."

Fifteen other students have also signed the complaint filed by the professor against the protesting students.

Meanwhile, IIT students have said that the faculty member who lodged the complaint has been banned on a social networking site for posting communal content.

In an article published on the IIT-Kanpur student media portal, the students clarified what exactly happened on the day of protest and how their chant was given a 'communal and misleading' turn. They stated that they had recited a few lines of the Faiz poem in reference to the police crackdown on the Jamia students.

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.