Sehwag replies to Kargil martyr’s daughter's anti-ABVP post

Mangaluru, Jul 11: Deputy Commissioner Sindhu B Rupesh has set up an expert committee to look into the cause of deaths of covid patients in Dakshina Kannada.

The development comes after eight more fatalities including that of a CISF personnel attached to MRPL, were reported in the district on Friday.

The district has recorded 23 deaths since July 1 and 38 death cases have been reported in the district since April 19.

Of the 38 deaths, five were from outside the district. All the eight patients, who lost their battle to the virus in the district on Friday, were suffering from co-morbidities.

According to the govt bulletin on Covid-19 cases, comorbid conditions, like kidney failure, brain tumour, TB, pneumonia, liver damage, high BP, diabetes and others, were the main reasons behind the Covid-19 deaths reported in the district.

Kalaburagi, Mar 16: A family member of the 76-year-old man from Kalaburgai who died of COVID-19 on March 10 has been tested positive for the virus.

Kalaburagi Deputy Commissioner B Sharat said, "One member of the family of the 76-year-old man from Kalaburgai, who died due to coronavirus has tested positive for the virus."

The disease which originated in China's Wuhan city in December last year has so far spread to more than 100 countries, infecting over 1,30,000 people.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has declared coronavirus a pandemic.

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.