Twitter briefly blocks Karnataka BJP’s official account over provocative tweets

Bengaluru, Jul 16: Eminent theatre personality and renowned vocalist Dr Subhadramma Mansur who had won many awards including the prestigious Karnataka Rajyotsava award died on Wednesday night, according to her family.

She was 81 and is survived by two sons and a daughter.

The family said she developed severe respiratory problems last night following which she was rushed to hospital, but died on the way.

Condoling her death, Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa said Dr Mansur had contributed to the theatre world for five decades. He also recalled her devotion to music as an eminent vocalist.

"I pray for her soul to rest in peace and strength to the family to bear the irreparable loss," the Chief Minister said in his message posted on Twitter.

The veteran theatre personality from Ballari earned recognition for her roles in mythology-based dramas.

Connoisseurs of stage performances recall her memorable portrayal of Draupadi, a character from the Mahabharata.

Her depiction of Hemareddy Mallamma left a deep imprint on the audience.

Many awards were bestowed on her including the Rajyotsava Award, Nataka Akademi and Gubbi Veeranna Award and an honorary doctorate by the Srikrishna Devaraya University

Jan 14: A day after it moved the Supreme Court against the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the Kerala government on Tuesday said it would continue its fight against the legislation as it "destroys" the secularism and democracy in the country.

The CPI(M)-led government had on Monday moved the apex court challenging the CAA and sought to declare it as 'ultra vires' of the Constitution. State Industries Minister E P Jayarajan told reporters here that the state has moved the apex court and will explore all options to fight the Act.

"The state government will to go to any extent and continue its fight against CAA. This Act destroys democracy in the country. This will only help in implementing the RSS agenda, to drive the nation through a fascist regime, and destroying the secularism and democracy in the country. The RSS and the Sangh Parivar cannot implement this law just by using muscle power," Jayarajan said.

Tourism Minister Kadakampally Surendran tweeted that the state became the first in the country to approach the top court against the Act. "Kerala government files lawsuit against the unconstitutional CAA. Kerala becomes the first state in the country to go to the Supreme Court against CAA.

"Kerala leads the way," he said in the tweet. In a suit filed in the apex court, the Kerala government has sought to declare that the CAA 2019 was "violative" of Article 14 (Equality before law), 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) and 25 (Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion) of the Constitution.

It also claimed that the law was violative of the basic principle of secularism enshrined in it. The state Assembly had on December 31, 2019, passed a unanimous resolution against the CAA and became the first state to do it.

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.