Rohini moves HC, says mining mafia behind her transfer

New Delhi, Mar 7: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the bail granted by Karnataka High Court to 21 Popular Front of India (PFI) members accused in connection with violence that erupted during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in Karnataka's Mangaluru in December 2019.

On February 17, the High Court had granted bail to the accused on the bail petition filed by Mohammed Ashik.

A bench consisting Chief Justice S A Bobde issued notice to the accused on Friday after taking cognisance of the plea filed by Karnataka government against the bail granted by the High Court.

Appearing for the state government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta criticised the High Court's order stating that at least 56 policemen sustained injuries during the violent protests.

Two persons identified as Jaleel (43) of Kudroli and Nousheen (49) of Bengre had died at a private hospital following the bullet injuries they sustained in an alleged police firing during a protest against CAA 2019.

Thiruvananthapuram, Jan 3: Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Friday wrote letters to 11 Chief Ministers including Arvind Kejriwal--Delhi and Mamata Banerjee, West Bengal-- pointing out apprehensions that had arisen among large sections of society consequent to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) - 2019.

In his letter, the Chief Minister said "the need of the hour is unity among all Indians who wish to protect and preserve our cherished values of democracy and secularism."

People from various cross-sections of the society irrespective of any difference they might have, need to stand united in preserving the basic tenets of our polity which form the cornerstone of Indian democracy, he added.

"We are sure that our unity in diversity, which has stood the test of times will ultimately emerge stronger. Kerala has decided to address the apprehensions about NRC and that preparation of NPR will lead to NRC by staying all activities relating to NPR in the State," Mr Vijayan said.

In this regard, the Kerala Legislative Assembly had passed the resolution on December 31, 2019, expressing its concern regarding the impact the CAA will have on the nation's secular credentials, he said.

"The resolution requested the Central Government to repeal the CAA, 2019. States, which have the opinion that CAA should be repealed can also consider similar steps so that it will be an eye-opener to the proponents of the CAA and the NRC," the Chief Minister pointed out.

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.