Srinivas Prasad praises Modi politics, says BJP is not anti-Dalit

Bengaluru, Mar 3: Senior Congress leader and Leader of Opposition in Karnataka Assembly Siddaramaiah on Tuesday said that the party's protest will continue until the Speaker will allow them to discuss BJP MLA Basanagouda Patil Yathnal's recent comments on freedom fighter HS Doreswamy.

"Our protest in the well of state assembly will continue until Speaker allows us to discuss about Basanagouda Patil Yatnal," Siddaramaiah said.

Congress MLAs staged a protest in the Karnataka Assembly and entered the well demanding BJP MLA Basanagouda Patil Yathnal's apology for his 'Pakistani agent' remark.

Earlier, Congress leaders on February 26 staged a protest on the same issue in front of Mahatma Gandhi's statue at Vidhana Soudha.

Yathnal, on February 25, called Doreswamy a fake freedom fighter and a Pakistani agent while addressing the media. His comments triggered a controversy drawing sharp remarks from Congress and other parties.

Bengaluru, Apr 29: Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad on Tuesday clarified that Department of Telecommunications has extended the relaxed terms and conditions for VPN till July 31.

"Wish to clarify that it is not extension of WFH. In response to IT Industry's request to facilitate WFH for OSPs, Department of Telecommunications, India had relaxed terms and conditions for VPN till April 30 After discussions with IT Ministers this relaxation in terms and conditions is extended till July 31," Prasad Tweeted quoting Deputy Chief Minister of Karnataka Dr Ashwath Narayan.

Earlier, the Karnataka government issued a press statement saying that the central government has given permission to IT professionals to work from home till July 31 in the view of COVID-19 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.