SC orders Karnataka to release 6000 till September 27

Bengaluru, Apr 23: The Karnataka government on Wednesday promulgated 'The Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Ordinance 2020' that provides the state with a power to seal borders, restrict essential services and punish those attacking public servants and damaging public property.

The Ordinance comes after violence in Padarayanapura when the police and BBMP officials were attacked while they tried to take some secondary contacts of a deceased COVID-19 patient into quarantine on April 19.

The Ordinance, which was promulgated after the Centre's guidelines in this regard, said, "The offender shall be liable for a penalty of twice the value of public or private property damaged as determined by the Deputy Commissioner after an inquiry."

It further said that if the penalty is not paid by the offender, then the amount shall be recovered under provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Deputy Commissioner can even attach the property of such offender in due course.

Also, abetment of offence would attract imprisonment of up to two years and a penalty of Rs 10,000 or both.

"No person shall commit or attempt to commit or instigate, incite or otherwise abet the commission of offence to cause loss or damage to any public or private property in any area when restrictions and regulations are in force to contain any epidemic disease," the Ordinance said.

Whoever contravenes such provision shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to Rs 50,000, it added.

On Wednesday, the Centre brought an Ordinance to end violence against health workers, making it a cognisable and non-bailable offence with imprisonment up to seven years for those found guilty.

"We have brought an Ordinance under which any attack on health workers will be a cognisable and non-bailable offence. In the case of grievous injuries, the accused can be sentenced from six months to seven years. They can be penalised from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 5 lakhs," Union Minister Prakash Javadekar briefed media after Cabinet meeting.

Javadekar said that an amendment will be made to the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and ordinance will be implemented.
This comes amid nationwide lockdown in the wake of COVID-19.

Mandya, Feb 9: A youth from Arechakanahalli village of Maddur taluk on Saturday allegedly committed suicide in Bengaluru after his lover got engaged to another man.

The body of the deceased, Darshan, was found hanging from the celising of his room in Bengaluru. According to Darshan's relatives, he was in love with a girl for the past few years.

Darshan had wanted to marry her, much to the chagrin of her parents, it is said.

The girl's parents had allegedly warned him of dire consequences if he did not stay clear from their daughter. In the meanwhile, she got engaged to another man.

Feeling left out, Darshan allegedly ended his life. In the suicide note, Darshan has held his lover and some of her relatives responsible for his death. He has also claimed that his family was facing death threat from her family.

There are rumours that Darshan might have been killed after he refused to stop seeing the girl. Though both the families are from the same community, their financial status, sources said, is different.

According to the relative of Darshan, the girl is a close relative to a former minister from Mandya district.

"There are reasons to suspect that Darshan might have been murdered, and a suicide note may have been planted at the crime spot.

A proper investigation should be conducted to unearth the truth," he said.

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.