Three suspected Nipah cases surface in Shivamogga dist

Belagavi, 13: In a shocking development, Karnataka has reported its first COVID-19 relapse with a 50-year-old Tablighi Jamaat convention attendee in Belagavi testing positive days after being discharged.

The State health officials confirmed that P-298 from Kudachi, who had recovered and was discharged, has suffered a relapse. He has been re-admitted to a designated hospital in Belagavi.

The patient was initially admitted on April 15 and recovered, testing negative twice on April 30 and May 1. The tests were done at the National Institute of Virology (NIV), Bengaluru, and the National Institute of Traditional Medicine (NITM), Belagavi.

Despite recovering, his treatment continued in the ICU for other comorbidities, especially cardiac issues. He was discharged on May 4 and quarantined at an institutional facility in Kudachi.

However, he developed symptoms again and was tested for COVID-19 again on May 5 at NITM, Belagavi. The result came back positive. He was re-admitted to a hospital, and on May 6 a second test was done at the Belagavi Institute of Medical Sciences. Again, he tested positive.

Bengaluru, Apr 5: An elderly couple from Bengaluru

with a travel history to Dubai joined the list of coronavirus patients in the state, taking the total number of cases to 146, the health department said on Sunday.

The list includes four deaths and 11 discharges.

The 68-year old man and his 62-year old wife, hailing from Madiwala in the city, had returned from Dubai on March 22.

They were quarantined at a private hospital and have been asymptomatic.

Meanwhile, the government appealed to people who had attended the Tablighi Jamaat Congregation in New Delhi to contact 080-29711171 Arogya Sahayavani, the medical helpline number.

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.