Why these farmers have started making their dogs resemble tigers

Thiruvananthapuram, Jan 26: Sister Lucy Kalappura, one of the nuns who protested against rape accused Bishop Franco Mulakkal, on Saturday claimed that she is being targeted at the convent and not being provided food.

Sister Lucy was dismissed from Franciscan Clarist congregation for supporting sisters protesting against the Bishop.

"I am being targeted at the convent and not being provided food. When I asked the reason, I was told I have been dismissed from the convent and they are not responsible for feeding me," said Sister Lucy while speaking to the reporters.

She has alleged that all this began after the release of her autobiography "Karthavinte Namathil" which means 'In the name of God'. In her book she had alleged sexual misconduct among priests and nuns.

"They prepare food and after having it they lock it in the cupboard. When I asked the reason behind this, they told me that I have been dismissed," said Sister Lucy.

"Now I am managing it all by myself with egg and tapioca that grows in the convent compound. Earlier they used to keep the leftover lunch and I used to adjust with that, but after my book was released, they started to lock the food in the cupboard," she added.

Sister Lucy also claimed that she had filed three complaints with the police on August 19, August 20 and on December 13. They had taken her statement but no action was taken.

"If the police would have taken some action against the convent authorities, they would not have behaved this way. An FIR was registered based on the three complaints but no action was taken. This gives them more power to act against me. I have drafted a letter to the Chief Minister to raise my complaint," said Sister Lucy.

Bishop Mulakkal, a senior member of the Roman Catholic clergy in India, was arrested in 2018 following allegations by a nun that he repeatedly raped and sexually assaulted her at Kuravilangad convent between 2014 and 2016, a charge that he denies.

Dammam: President of Indian Social Forum, Eastern Province Mr.Wasim Rabbani urged immediate intervention of Indian government to help Non Residential Indians who are in trouble due to corona pandemic in Saudi Arabia.

He said in a press rease that expatriate Indians are in concern  as number of corona infected people and  deaths are increasing in danger level.

Hea said, "the Saudi health minister's statement a few days ago indicates that the situation in Saudi needs to be taken more seriously with precautionary methods. There are concerns among expatriates because the number of people infected with the coronavirus and the number of deaths reported in various provinces are increasing at an alarming rate."

"Saudi Government and Health Ministry are taking excellent precautionary measures, however, in the coming days expect to see the number of cases to increase in Saudi Arabia. The Indian government needs to take diplomatic and immediate intervention to ensure the treatment of Indian expatriates considering the number of effected people increasing", He said.

He also urged that the Embassy and the Government of India should ensure qaurantiane faculty for Indian expatriates and arrange special low cost flights to bring back expatriates who would like to return home country.

" Government of India and Indian embassy need to intervene immediately to ensure that the quarantine system is in place for Indian expatriates as the facilities in the rooms where the residents are staying together are very limited. There should also be a mechanism to organize low-cost flight services for expatriates who are ready to go home. The government system should also be able to accommodate the expatriates in special quarantine areas in hometown as soon they arrive in India", he urged.

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.