Yeddyurappa loves people; Siddaramaiah is corrupt CM: Shobha

Tumakuru, Apr 12: Fearing the spread of COVID-19 in Muddenahalli village, the villagers shifted to living in tents in nearby fields with most of their belongings.

Kariyappa, one of the villagers said, "We were scared of the COVID-19 spread, so we came here."

Around 60 families of the village lived in tents for three days, before they returned to their houses on the advice of the Tehsildar.

So far, 214 COVID-19 cases, including six deaths, have been reported in the state of Karnataka.

With 34 deaths and 909 new positive COVID-19 cases in the last 24 hours, the total number of coronavirus cases in India on Sunday reached 8356, including 716 cured and discharged, according to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

Ballari, Mar 6: Ballari Deputy Commissioner S S Nakul on Friday said that two persons who had shown symptoms of COVID-19 had been admitted to the district government hospital here.

Informing this to the presspersons here, Mr Nakul said that the cases were reported from Jindal village of K R Hospital taluk and another one from Hospet town in Ballari taluk.

He said a suspect returned from Dubai to Hospet last week and showed symptoms of COVID-19. Both suspected patients were admitted to special isolated ward in Ballari government hospital and their throat swab tests taken on Thursday had been sent to lab in Bangalore to check for COVID-19.

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.