SP Annamalai warns saffron groups, media against trying to twist Dhanyashree suicide case

Mangaluru, Feb 21: Police officials including the Mangaluru city Commissioner of Police P S Harsha would be summoned to appear before the panel conducting a magisterial probe into December 19, 2019 firing on anti-CAA protesters in the city which left two people dead.

Notices would be served on 176 police officers and staff to appear for hearing, Udupi deputy commissioner G Jagadeesha, conducting the magisterial probe into the incident said here on Thursday.

He told reporters that officials, including the city police commissioner Harsha, would be summoned to depose on the violence which led to police firing that killed two people.

Mangaluru (North) Assistant Commissioner K U Belliappa, who is the nodal officer for the police department, has given a list of 176 policemen who are ready to adduce evidence in the hearing.

The police officers would be summoned in phases.

The next hearing is on February 25.

He said so far, 203 members of the public have deposed before him on the incident.

Former city Mayor K Ashraf, who is under treatment in hospital, has also provided a written statement.

The remaining members of the public can provide evidence during next hearings, he said.

On December 19, two people were killed in police firing as protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) turned violent here.

The protesters had attempted to besiege the Mangaluru north police station and tried to attack police personnel, following which force was used to disperse them, police had said.

Two people received bullet injuries in the firing and they later succumbed at a hospital, the police had said.

New Delhi, Feb 3: Congress leader BK Hariprasad on Monday condemned BJP MP Anantkumar Hegde's remark on Mahatma Gandhi and termed him as "son" of Nathuram Godse, the assassin of the freedom fighter.

"Only sons of Nathuram Godse can make such comments on Mahatma Gandhi," Hariprasad said.

Hedge had attacked Mahatma Gandhi by calling the freedom struggle led by him a "drama" and also questioned as to how "such people" come to be called 'Mahatma' in India.

"None of these so-called leaders were beaten up by the cops even once. Their independence movement was one big drama. It was staged by these leaders with the approval of the British. It was not a genuine fight. It was an adjustment freedom struggle," he had said.

The Trinamool Congress also lent its support to Congress as its leader Saugata Roy said people like Anant Hegde cause shame to the nation. "We are a supporter of Gandhi and they (BJP) are Nathuram Godse supporters. People of this country should see how BJP MPs are as they insult father of the nation," he added.

BJP leaders too found it difficult to defend Hegde on the controversial remarks.

Senior leader Jagdambika pal was cautious in his defence and said, "The whole world knows about Gandhi and it may be his personal opinion."

Whereas senior BJP leaders avoid commenting on Hegde, Union Minister Ashwani Choubey said that Hegde should not have made the comment and added that Gandhi is a well-respected figure in the nation.

Another BJP MP from Haryana Sanjay Bhatia also tried to shy away from making a direct comment and instead said," Congress did not implement what Gandhi preached. It is Prime Minister Narendra Modi who implemented Gandhi's teachings in letter and spirit."

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.