Will make Tamil Nadu No.1 state in India, says Jayalalithaa

Bengaluru, Feb 26: Karnataka Minister CT Ravi on Wednesday said that time is ripe to bring in Uniform Civil Code in the country as there was a demand for "equality".

"Everyone talks about equality. Those who desired inequality in the past are now seeking equality. The time is ripe to bring Uniform Civil Code," he said.

The Minister said that the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) has been a part of the party's agenda since the time when BJP was formed in 1980.

"We spoke about article 370, we have done it, on Ayodhya issue, the Supreme Court has given its verdict. As the time comes we will do it," he said.

Bengaluru, Apr 25: Former Karnataka Health minister and senior Congress leader Dr H C Mahadevappa on Saturday urged the state government to chalk out a comprehensive plan to conduct tests among the vulnerable sections in the society to impede the spread of the dreaded COVID-19 pandemic in the state.

Speaking to media persons, Dr Mahadevappa, felt that only restricting people to remain indoors will not suffice to tackle the spread of the contagious disease he said that "There needs to step up testing the people especially belonging to the vulnerable sections of the society".

Maintaining that the COVID-19 disease, which has progressed itself as a pandemic, across the globe, former Health Minister said that "there is also a need to fight the menace with multiple dimension, as it has potential to cause damage not only the social life of the people but also their livelihood".

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.