UAE based NRI donates Rs 15 lakh for newborn tiger cubs in Mangaluru

Mangaluru, Apr 29: One person was arrested on charges of murdering a middle-aged couple on Wednesday in Yellinje near Kinnigoli.

The area falls under the jurisdiction of Mulky police.

Police said that the deceased were identified as Vincent D’Souza (50) and his wife Helina D’ Souza (45).

The arrested was identified as Alphonso (55). He will be sent to judicial custody, said police.

Mangaluru, Jan 28: Amidst nationwide agitation by ‘We, the People of India’ against contentious CAA, NRC, the women of Manglauru have decided to hold satyagrah and form a human chain in front of the office of the Deputy Commissioner in the heart of the city on January 30.

This was announced in a press conference today by activists Sajida Momin, Vidya Dinker, Terry Pais, Maria Ferandes and Suhasini Babbukatte.

The event will mark the 73rd anniversary of the martyrdom of the original Satyagrahi Mahatma Gandhi, who was assassinated by saffronite terrorist Nathuram Godse.

Ms Momin told media persons that the Satyagrah will commence at 10 a.m. to safeguard the constitution. At 4:30 p.m. a human chain will be formed.

“At 5.17p.m. when the father of the nation was gunned down 72 years ago during his evening prayer at Birla House by Godse, we will convey Gandhi’s message of unity against violence,” she said.

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.