'Training camp for terrorists who assassinated M M Kalburgi was held in Dakshina Kannada'

Ballari, July 26: Karnataka's minister for forests and environment Anand Singh has tested positive for COVID-19 and is in quarantine at his residence in Hospet town of Ballari district.

Minister's son-in-law Sandeep Singh confirmed it and said he has been home-quarantined and the doctors are treating him at home. It is not known who have contracted the virus from him, he told.  

A few days back, the car driver of the minister had tested positive for Covid-19. Old house of the minister located at Ranipet here was sealed down and he was quarantined at his bungalow off the ring road. 

A week ago, the minister held a meeting which was attended by doctors, hotel owners, the officials and journalists. Hence, they have been advised to undergo Covid-19 test, said a Government hospital doctor.

Saharanpur (Uttar Pradesh), May 19: Islamic seminary Darul Uloom Deoband has issued a fatwa asking Muslims to offer their Eid prayers this time at home, instead of congregating at mosques.

The directive comes amid a nationwide lockdown to slow down the spread of coronavirus.

Despite the relaxations announced in the lockdown, religious and other large gatherings are still banned.

The fatwa was issued in response to a query put to the seminary, its spokesman Ashraf Usmani said.

The fatwa said the Eid namaz can be offered in the same manner that the Friday prayers are now being read at home.

It said not holding the namaz in the usual manner is pardonable in circumstances such as these.

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.