Saudi Arabia mulls permanent residency for expatriates

Shivamogga, Jan 2: A large number of farmers who wanted to stage a demonstration against Prime Minister Narendra Modi protesting the non-implementation of the 'Swaminathan Report' were detained at Bengaluru, Tumakuru and Shivamogga, police said on Thursday.

According to police, the detentions have taken place in certain parts of Tumakuru, near Bengaluru as well as in Shivamogga.

As part of his two-day visit to Karnataka, Modi is scheduled to visit Tumakuru on Thursday to pay his obeisance to the departed seer of Siddaganga Math Shivakumara Swamiji and meet the present pontiff Siddalinga Mahaswamiji.

Later, he would address a mega public meeting where he will give away the Krishi Karman awards.

In the evening he will reach Bengaluru to visit the DRDO facility to dedicate five DRDO Young Scientists Laboratories to the nation.

Pressing implementation of the Swaminathan Report, which recommends a holistic national policy, the farmers under the leadership of Kodihalli Chandrashekar had planned to stage a demonstration at Tumakuru.

Before they could leave for Tumakuru, the police detained them.

According to Chandrashekar, the farmers have been arrested at Nelamangala, Herohalli near Magadi, Kunigal and Koratagere in Tumakuru district and Shivamogga.

Speaking to PTI, Chandrashekar said the BJP has betrayed farmers by not implementing the Swaminathan report.

"The BJP could implement all the agenda such as abrogation of Article 370, paving way for Ram Temple in Ayodhya and various other poll promises but it ignored its promise of implementing the Swaminathan report," the farmer leader said.

Chandrashekar also said he has been detained at a ground on Magadi Road along with two others while farmers who wanted to take part in the protest have been detained in different parts of the state.

Bengaluru/Ballari, Jan 7: Former minister BZ Zameer Ahmed Khan of the Congress set a one-week deadline for the BJP government on Monday to arrest Ballari City BJP legislator G Somashekhara Reddy for his recent speech warning Muslims of dire consequences if they continue to protest against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.

Police have already booked Reddy, younger brother of tainted mining baron G Janardhan Reddy, under section 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion) of the Indian Penal Code.

However, Khan took the fight to Reddy a step further. “If the government fails to arrest Reddy by January 13, I will stage a dharna outside his house in Ballari, come what may. Let them do whatever they want,” Khan told reporters in Bengaluru.

In his speech at a pro-CAA rally organized by BJP workers and ABVP activists in Ballari, the BJP legislator had said, “We [Hindus] are 83% and they [Muslims] are 17% and if we take law into hands, you know what will happen.”

Khan said on Monday, “I challenge Reddy, the coward, to unsheathe his sword and cut me down first. It is absolutely shameful for a legislator to speak such things against a particular community. Why is Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who often says Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas, silent?”

On his part, Reddy on Monday said he stood by what he said. “What I meant was you Muslims should not get swayed by CAA protests and damage public property. We [Hindus] are sons of the same mother and live peacefully. However, they [Muslims] should not test our [Hindu] patience. I stick by my words 100%,” he said.

A delegation of the Ballari district Congress unit also submitted an appeal to the deputy commissioner, inspector general of police and superintendent of police on Monday to arrest Reddy for his provocative speech.

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.