Scam-tainted Yeddyurappa to strengthen BJP

Thrissur, Mar 7: A local temple in Kerala is at the centre of a social media storm after the picture of a ''Brahmins-only toilet'' outside its main campus went viral on online platforms, prompting the management to remove the signboard.

The picture of three toilets, with signboards showing "Men", "Women" and "Brahmins", at the Kuttumukku Mahadeva Temple in Thrissur, has gone viral with many social media users viewing it as an unethical practise that can portray the progressive state in a bad light.

However, temple officials said the toilets were located outside the main campus and the board was brought to their notice only now.

Kannan, an official of the temple committee, said the board was placed nearly two decades ago and nobody raised any complaint against it so far.

"That particular toilet was being used by priests and other temple employees. We didn't even notice that board... As soon as we came to know about it, we removed it and affixed a staff-only board," he told PTI.

Also a CPI-M functionary and ward councillor, Kannan said the shrine and it's management was against all kinds of unethical customs.

The temple official said they were planning to pursue legal measures against the man who posted the photo of the toilets on social media.

"We suspect that he did it deliberately to create issues during the time of the festival and to tarnish the shrine's reputation. Not only that, the photo he shared was an old one though he claimed that it was taken during the time of the festival, " 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.