Thousands bid emotional farewell to Siachen braveheart

Bengaluru, May 16: Health Minister B Sriramulu has sought the aid of Home department for curbing sex work in certain parts of the state - which continues unabated despite lockdown.

“It poses health risks to those involved. I request the department to ensure that the business is prohibited at such a time of crisis,” he stated in a letter to Home Minister Basavaraj Bommai.  

At the same time, in order to ensure the safety of these workers, Sriramulu has asked both the Health department and the Karnataka State AIDS Prevention Society (KSAPS) to come up with a detailed report on rehabilitation of sex workers and transgenders.

The Health minister’s order was prompted by a letter by writer and activist Roopa Hassan. The writer, who was earlier member of a panel (led by actor-turned-politician Jayamala) on the study of issues faced by sex workers, had sought government’s intervention to stop condom distribution to registered sex workers and transgenders, as continuing work during pandemic was posing health risks to the community.

Udupi, May 24: As many as 23 people tested positive for coronavirus in Udupi in past 24 hours, according to the latest bulletin released by the health and family welfare department.

While 18 were tested positive till noon, five more tested postive by evening.

With this the total number of covid-19 cases in the district rose to 76 including a death. Three have recovered. There 72 active cases.

Among 23 fresh cases, many had reportedly come from Maharashtra. A 44-year-old woman had returned from UAE. A 26-year-old man returned from Telangana.

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.