Three college students thrashed by group while waiting for bus 

Bengaluru, Jun 5: The Karnataka government has asked all its departments and authorities to avoid during all official transactions the nomenclature "Dalit" for members belonging to the Scheduled Castes.

"All the departments and authorities of government of Karnataka are requested that (use of name Dalit) for all official transactions, matters, dealings, certificates, among others," the official circular said.

The Constitutional term Scheduled Caste in English and its appropriate translation in other national languages should alone be used for denoting the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes notified in the presidential orders issued under Article 341 of the Constitution, the circular said.

The circular issued on May 20 notes instructions issued by the Central government in 2018, with reference to the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench.

"That the Central government/state government and its functionaries would refrain from using the nomenclature "Dalit" for the members belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as the same does not find mentioned in the Constitution or any statute," the order had said.

Pointing out that the Central government had earlier issued instructions that the words "Harijan" and "Girijan" should not be used, the circular said accordingly the Karnataka government also had issued a Government Order in 2010.

Mangaluru, Feb 3: After neighbouring reported the second confirmed case of dreaded Coronavirus, the government of Karnataka today ordered high alert across border districts including Dakshina Kannada.

Apart from Dakshina Kannada, district administrations in Kodagu, Chamarajanagar and Mysuru that share boundary with Kerala have been put on high alert over the movement of people with suspected cases.

In a statement released on Monday, the Health and Family welfare department said that these districts have been directed to immediately report to the State Surveillance Unit (SSU) if they come across any suspected cases of people infected with Coronavirus.

Currently, about 51 people who returned from Coronavirus-affected regions have been identified and 46 are under home isolation across Karnataka.

So far, 44 samples have been sent to the National Institute of Virology, Pune for analysis and out of which 29 samples have revealed negative results. Yet, the state government has put in all possible measures to check the spread of the virus in any part of the state.

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.