Rs 1,200 cr released from state relief fund for flood relief work, says BSY

Bengaluru, May 19: Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa-led Karnataka government has recommended the withdrawal of 46 cases against leaders belonging to Sangh Parivar who had apparently involved in violence during the birth anniversary celebration of Tipu Sultan in the state. 

These cases – ranging from very serious forms of assaults on Muslims to unlawful assembly – were registered across Karnataka between 2014 and 2018.

Among the cases recommended to be withdrawn include those registered against senior state BJP leader Sanjay Patil, VHP leader Swaroop Kalkundri, and several district level Bajrang Dal activists. 

The government recommended withdrawal of these cases under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on March 5. 

The recommendations, however, have been opposed by three crucial law enforcement departments – Director General and Inspector General of Police (DG & IGP), Director-Department of prosecution and Government litigation and Law department. 

While the DG & IGP has opined that these cases “cannot be withdrawn”, both the department of prosecution and law have observed that these are “not a fit case to withdraw”.

New Delhi, Apr 4: The Supreme Court on Friday urged Karnataka and Kerala to amicably resolve their issues concerning a border blockade that has choked the free flow of vehicles carrying essential items and patients in the midst of the COVID-19 outbreak.

Karnataka, which imposed the blockade, justified that its border was sealed to “combat the spread of the pandemic by preventing the movement of people from the bordering districts of Kerala to Karnataka”.

The State had moved the Supreme Court, challenging a Kerala High Court order on April 1 to open the border. Kerala has countered that patients from the State cannot be denied access to health care. Besides, the blockade has severely affected the supply of essential items, from medicines to food, to Kerala.

On Friday, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta urged the States to not confront each other in the midst of an unprecedented public health crisis. Instead, it asked the Chief Secretaries of both States to sit with the Union Health Secretary and iron out a solution. Meanwhile, the apex court urged Kerala not to take any precipitative action based on the High Court order.

The court issued notice to Kerala on the appeal filed by Karnataka, represented by advocate Shubhranshu Padhi. It listed the case for further hearing on April 7.

Karnataka, in its appeal against the High Court order, said the blockade was put in place in the interest of public health. The situation regarding Coronavirus was “really dire”, it said. It warned that opening the blockade would cause a law and order issue as its local population wanted the border to remain sealed.

Karnataka argued that Kerala was the “worst-affected” State in the country with nearly 194 coronavirus cases. In this, Kasaragod, adjoining Karnataka, was the “worst affected” district of Kerala with over a 100 positive cases.

MP’s plea

The court also separately considered a writ petition by Kasaragod MP Rajmohan Unnithan for an order to forthwith open the State border.

The parliamentarian, represented by advocates Haris Beeran and Pallavi Pratap, urged the court to issue an ex-parte stay on the operation of the blockade imposed by Karnataka with its border States.

Mr. Unnithan said Karnataka’s blockade was “ill-planned and dangerous” and had led to loss of lives. Two patients from Kerala, in need of urgent medical care, died after their ambulances were denied entry at the border by the Karnataka authorities. 

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.