Star-studded Habba' mesmerises Puttur

Bengaluru, Feb 13: 'Karnataka Bandh' call given by various Kannada organisation demanding implementation of Sarojini Mahashi report for ensuring job reservation to local people (Kannadigas) in the Private and government organisation, including industries, evoked mixed response in the State on Thursday.

The Bandh call was given by the “Karnataka Sanghatanegala Okkoota”, comprising a few factions of “Karnataka Rakshana Vedike” (KRV) and was backed by Ola-Uber Cab Drivers’ Association, a few auto unions, farmers’ associations, street vendors association, trade unions and transporters’ associations.

Meanwhile, Airport Taxi Services also supported the Bandh which forced flight passengers to find it difficult in finding the transport for reaching their destination in time. Fortunately, BMTC bus services at Kempegowda International Airport (KIA) was available at the Airport.

Bengaluru, May 27: Karnataka Chief Minister Yediyurappa on Wednesday said that his government will re-open temples, mosques and churches in the state after May 31.

"We are going to open temples, mosques and churches in the state after May 31, he said while speaking to media in Bengaluru.

The Chief Minister added that the "guidelines will be followed" as suggested by experts for opening the worship places.

"We have no objections to open malls and cinema halls, but we are waiting for the guidelines of the central government, Prime Minister will take decisions to allow malls and cinemas to open," he added.

Yediyurappa has said that people from Gujarat, Maharashtra, Kerala and Tamil Nadu will not be allowed in the state till May 31.

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.