Udupi: Sadhwi Balika Saraswati invited for Hindu Samajotsav

Bengaluru, Jun 23: Karnataka Congress leader and Kanakapura MLA DK Shivakumar said on Monday that in the wake of coronavirus pandemic, people of his assembly constituency have taken a unanimous decision of remaining under voluntary lockdown until July 1.

The decision was taken after he headed a meeting at Kanakapura on Sunday, at the office of Kanakapura Municipality.

"Let us consider the situation after July 1, hold a similar meeting, and take the next decision. It has nothing to do with the state government's mandate. It came to the conclusion that this was a decision that we all voluntarily took," said DK Shivakumar.

DK Shivakumar informed that the merchants have agreed to sell groceries, fruits, vegetables, fennel, meat and other food items from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. only. District authorities, DCs, SPs and hospital representatives have decided the timings of clinics and drug stores.

He further said, "In this self-motivated lockdown, unnecessary driving should be avoided. The social gap must be maintained. No one should be oppressed by anyone."

Member of Parliament DK Suresh, Ravi - Ramanagara District Collector Archana, SP Anoop Shetty, and Kanakapura Planning Authority Chairman Jagannath were also present in the meeting.

Bengaluru, Jun 5: An FIR has been filed against former journalist and human rights activist Aakar Anil Patel in Bengaluru here over his comments on social media under charges pertaining to provocation with intent to cause riots.

The FIR was registered under Section 117 (abetting commission of an offence by the public or by more than ten persons), 153 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot), and 505-1-B (intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at the JC Nagar police station.

According to the FIR filed on June 2, Patel had tweeted that protests like the ones in the US over George Floyd's death are needed in India by the marginalised communities.

Patel, former chief of Amnesty International India, had on May 31 posted from his Twitter account, which is not verified.

On May 25, Floyd died in police custody in Minneapolis, Minnesota, following which protests against police brutality and racism erupted in various cities in the United States. The protests were later replaced by incidents of violence across the country.

India also has witnessed several cases of mob lynchings and custodial deaths in recent years. In most cases victims belong to down trodden communities such as Muslims and Dalits.

Responding to the development, Amnesty International India has said that FIR against Patel is another example of how the right to dissent is being "increasingly" criminalised.

"The Bengaluru police must stop abusing its authority and put an end to the intimidation and harassment of Aakar Patel for exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression. People of this country have the right to agree or disagree with those in power, and to express these opinions in peaceful protests - without fear or unlawful interference," Amnesty International India Executive Director Avinash Kumar said.

He said that peacefully protesting against the government is not a crime and added that not agreeing with the policies of those in power does not make you a traitor.

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.