Yeddyurappa promises 7.5% quota for Valmikis if it comes to power

Hubballi, Jan 28: Charting that the Bharatiya Janata party’s Central leaders have not given a free-hand to the Chief minister B S Yediyurappa on the issue of expansion of Cabinet, former Chief minister and the Congress leader Siddaramaiah had opined that 'it has hampered the State’s development'.

Speaking to newsmen here on Tuesday, the Congress leader, alleged that 'by not giving permission to Yediyurappa to expand his ministry, it was evident that there is no any internal democracy in the Saffron Party'.

Bengaluru, May 30: Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa has announced that on May 31 (Sunday) there will not be a total lockdown and all activities will be permitted and continue like the rest of the week.

The decision was taken in view of demands from citizens and “keeping their interests in mind,” said a statement from the Chief Minister’s Office (CMO).

This means that public transport services - buses, autos and cabs - shops, commercial establishments and others will be open on May 31.

Under a Lockdown 4.0, Karnataka had decided to throw open public transport, except metro, shops and commercial establishments, except Metro, on all six days between 7 am and 7 pm. However, May 24 and May 31 - Sundays - were exempted from the relaxation and a curfew was to be imposed throughout the day.

The Lockdown 4.0 ends May 31 and the government's decision to keep Sunday free comes ahead of the Lockdown 5.0 that the Centre is expected to announce soon.

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.