Three youngsters held for murder of rowdy sheeter Pavan Raj

Bengaluru, April 6: Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa on Monday said he is following the one-time fasting as per the order by BJP President JP Nadda.

"I am following the one-time fasting as per the order by our national President JP Nadda, on BJP foundation day today, as a mark of respect to doctors, nurses, media personnel," said BS Yediyurappa.

In his message to BJP workers earlier today, Nadda stated, "All BJP Karyakartas to give up one meal on our Foundation Day as a way to show solidarity with people facing hardships during the lockdown. Provide food packets to 5+1 needy under #FeedtheNeedy program. In the next one week, put a system in place where we can provide two homemade face covers to each person at our booth. We should circulate videos of preparation and distribution of such face covers with #WearFaceCoverStaySafe."

Mangaluru, May 15: In a shocking development, five residents of Udupi district, who recently came from United Arab Emirates today tested positive for covid-19.

As many as 49 passengers among over 175 repatriates who were brought from Dubai to Mangaluru International Airport on May 12 were from Udupi district.

Hence they were quarantined in Udupi district and their throat swabs were sent for testing on the same day. Today, five of them obtained positive report. They were today shifted to TMA Pai covid-hospital from their hotel rooms.

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.