Will disclose history of Tipu if my name is printed on invitation: Ananth Kumar

Bengaluru, Feb 26: The Karnataka Pre-University Board issued a five-page booklet on Coronavirus ahead of the forthcoming examination to spread awareness among the students, the Board said on Wednesday.

In a statement, the Board said that the booklet contains details on symptoms of the disease, measures to be taken in case of an outbreak and other information. The Board has directed the Directors in all districts to disseminate the information to students through college principals.

The PUC examination begins from March 4 and continues till March 23.

The government of India has added 141 more flights to West Asian countries for the second phase of Vande Bharat Mission, its massive repatriation programme for citizens stranded overseas because of Covid-19-related travel restrictions.

The second phase was to end on May 22. However, External Affairs Ministry Spokesperson Anurag Srivastava said the ongoing phase will last till June 13 and that India is looking at making Frankfurt a hub for the mission.

With these new flights, more than half of them to the United Arab Emirates, the total number of flights in the second phase of the programme have gone up to more than 400, people familiar with developments said on condition of anonymity.

The flights were added due to increased demand from citizens stranded in West Asian countries and the availability of adequate quarantine facilities in states for the returning Indians, the people said. As with all the flights operated so far under Vande Bharat Mission, priority will be given in the second phase to Indian nationals with compelling reasons for returning to the country, they added.

The additional flights are from the UAE (81 flights), Oman and Saudi Arabia (15 flights each), Kuwait (14 flights), Qatar (11 flights) and Bahrain (five flights).

A majority of the flights are bound for Kerala (84 flights), while the other destinations are Delhi (10 flights), Tamil Nadu (nine flights), Telangana (six flights) Gujarat and Jammu and Kashmir (five flights each), Bihar, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh (four flights each), Punjab (three flights), Odisha and West Bengal (two flights each), Chandigarh, Karnataka and Goa (one flight each).

The other 260-odd flights being operated during the second phase of Vande Bharat Mission are from Armenia, Australia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Canada, Egypt, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Mauritius, Myanmar, Nepal, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Oman, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Tajikistan, the UK, Ukraine and the US.

The second phase of the repatriation programme began on May 16 and will continue till June 13, with all the flights being operated by state-run Air India and its subsidiary Air India Express. Private airlines are likely to be included in the third phase.

As of Thursday, a total of 23,475 Indians have been repatriated under Vande Bharat Mission. The second phase had included new destinations such as Istanbul, Ho Chi Minh City and Lagos, and had increased flights to the US and Europe.

More than 259,000 Indians in 98 countries across the world have registered to return under Vande Bharat Mission. Most of them are workers (28%), students (25%), professionals (14.5%), and short-term visa holders such as tourists (7.6%). Fishermen, deportees and Indian nationals who benefited from visa amnesties have also registered.

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.