Will Arathi Krishna contest Karnataka assembly polls?

Mangaluru, Jun 28: The patience and presence of mind exhibited by the family members of youth covid-19 victim thwarted the attempt by a few miscreants to create communal disharmony in the coastal city today.

A 31-year-old youth from Idya in Surathkal, who was under treatment for covid-19 at designated Wenlock Hospital in the city, passed away last night. 

Even though there is a Muslim graveyard under the jurisdiction of Idya mosque, it was waterlogged due to heavy rains. 

Hence, the Idya mosque management had obtained permission from Mangaluru’s Bolar mosque management to bury the mortal remains of the youth in Bolar graveyard. 

All necessary arrangements were made at the Bolar graveyard for the burial this morning. Meanwhile, a few residents of Bolar belonging to another community staged a protest against bringing covid-19 victim’s mortal remains to Bolar.

Mohammad Husain, general secretary of Bolar mosque, said that the family members of the departed youth exhibited their presence of mind and urged the Muslims of Bolar to preserve communal harmony.

“The Bolar mosque committee had given green signal for the burial and all arrangements were made. Meanwhile, a few people staged protest and warned us against burying the covid-19 victim’s body. When the aggrieved family members came to know this, they immediately cancelled the plan,” he said. 

“The aggrieved family requested us to uphold communal amity and co-existence. They decided to bury the body in Idya itself. Then the protesters also returned,” he said.

Burial in Bolar after DC’s intervention

When the mortal remains were being taken towards Surathkal in the ambulance, the Deputy Commissioner of Dakshina Kannada ordered the authorities concerned to take a U-turn and bring back mortal remains to Bolar.  

The DC said it was wrong to take the mortal remains to another place after making all necessary armaments in Bolar graveyard. In order to pacify the porters it was decided to dig another grave on the other side of the graveyard, sources 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.