Secure Nithyananda, Centre tells Karnataka

Bengaluru, Jun 24: Karnataka Minister of Medical Education Dr K Sudhakar said on Tuesday that the directors of institutions will be held responsible if any there are any complaints and lack of facilities in the treatment of COVID-19 patients.

'Since a couple of days, there are reports in media regarding the admission of COVID-19 patients, lack of hygiene and the supply of sub-standard food to patients. The country is appreciating Karnataka and Bengaluru for controlling the spread of coronavirus. This was possible due to tireless efforts from past several months and these kinds of reports emerging now cannot be tolerated," Sudhakar said.

He added, "There can be no compromise in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. It must be ensured that these kinds of complaints will not be repeated. Directors of hospitals will be held responsible if there are complaints."

The medical education minister further said that asymptomatic patients will be kept in COVID-Care Centres and if they develop symptoms in the care centres, they will be shifted to hospitals for further treatment.

"Since the COVID-19 cases are increasing, private hospitals have been roped in to treat coronavirus patients. Officials have to ensure that beds are reserved and all arrangements are made as per the government order. Guidelines will soon be issued for monitoring asymptomatic cases in COVID care centres," he added.

Karnataka on Tuesday reported 322 fresh COVID-19 positive cases and eight deaths.
According to the state health department, the total number of positive cases has mounted to 9,721 and 150 deaths. So far, 6,004 people have been discharged.

Bengaluru, Mar 26: The number of COVI D-19 cases in Karnataka spiked to 55 on Thursday after four new cases were reported. 

According to official sources, a 35-year-old man, who was a resident of Nanjanagud town in Mysuru taluk and worked in a pharma unit, tested positive for coronavirus. 

He had been quarantined in his home and efforts are being made to track down as many as seven persons, who had primary contact with 
him.

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.