Shahul Hameed elected president of Jamiyyatul Falah DK-Udupi

Bengaluru, Mar 4: Seeking to allay fear among the citizens in the wake of Coronavirus scare, Karnataka Health Minister B Sriramulu on Wednesday made an appeal to the people not to pay heed to rumours spreading on social media.

In a series of tweets, Mr Sriramulu assured people that the government has taken adequate measures to ensure that the disease does not spread further. "Don't lend your ears to rumours about the Coronavirus in the social media. Rely only on the authentic information," he tweeted.

The minister's tweet came as Bengaluru reported the first case, after a techie from the city with a travel history to Dubai and interaction with Hong Kong-based people there, was admitted to a hospital in Hyderabad.

As panic gripped the city, Mr Sriramulu said the apartment where the software engineer was staying has been sanitised. Besides, his 25 colleagues have been identified. One of them has been admitted to the hospital as a precautionary measure and his blood sample has been sent for lab test.

"So far 40,207 people have been screened at the International airport. 251 blood tests have been done, of which 238 were found negative, while the rest of the reports are yet to come," Mr Sriramulu tweeted.

The health department said three people have been admitted to the isolation ward at the Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Chest Diseases (RGICD).

Meanwhile, a parent appealed to people not to panic about the Coronavirus in the techie's apartment, where his son too resides. "My son is from the same apartment. To update everyone, there is absolutely nothing wrong here. It was more of panic on social media that created this," he said in a message.

He said that the man who is in Telengana and testedpositive stayed in this building on February 21. "His roommate was taken to hospital and has tested negative," he said. It is been two weeks since the incident. The virus cansurvive only for 48 hours under optimal conditions, he noted. "Everyone in this building is safe. Please educate yourself. Refrain from spreading panic and misinformation." he added.

Bengaluru, Feb 4: A 33-year old woman techie allegedly stabbed her mother to death and made a murderous assault on her younger brother before fleeing their home here, police said on Tuesday.

According to police, the woman fatally stabbed her mother using a knife and attacked the brother early on Monday.

The injured brother has been hospitalised here.

A search was on for the techie and the motive for her action under investigation, police said.

The woman, employed as a software engineer with a company here, earlier had told her mother and 30-year old brother that she has been transferred to Hyderabad and she may have to relocate.

The brother told police that in the early morning on Monday he saw his sister searching something desperately and offered to assist, which she refused.

However, minutes later she made a murderous assault on him, he told police, adding when he screamed for help and called his mother, his sister said she has killed their mother.

She stabbed him and attacked with an iron rod before fleeing, her brother told police.

The body of the mother was found in another room in the house.

"We are still investigating the matter. We are not clear about the motive behind the murder," a police officer told media adding the woman was yet to be arrested.

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.