We do all the work, but people vote for BJP: Siddaramaiah

Udupi, Feb 29: Senior Congress leader and Udupi’s crackers trader K Krishnaraja Saralaya allegedly committed suicide by jumping into a well outside his house at Paniyadi on Saturday.

He was 87, Krishnaraja was leading a solitary life. It is suspected that he ended his life ''due to mental agony''.

He is survived by two daughters. One is settled in Australia another is in Bengaluru. Saralaya had also served as President of Udupi Town Co-operative Society. The police visited the spot .

Hubli, Feb 25: A Hubli court in Karnataka has sent to police custody till February 28 three students from Jammu and Kashmir, who were booked under sedition charges for raising pro-Pakistan slogan in a video shared on social media.

A second Joint Magistrate First Class (JMFC) court on Monday sent the three students, identified as Basit Ashik Sophi (19), Talib Majid (19) and Amir Mohiuddin (23), to police custody till February 28 for questioning in the matter.

The court directed the police to make the accused undergo a medical evaluation before the interrogation and produce the medical certificates in the court before the next hearing.

The three students were last week transferred to Belgaum Hindalga jail from Hubli sub-jail and the case, registered in Gokul Road police station, was also transferred to the rural police station because the video was recorded in the college hostel room which is in the latter's jurisdiction.

The Kashmiri students were under judicial custody since February 17 following their arrest for raising pro-Pakistan slogans and posting a video of the same on social media on the night of February 16. 

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.