16 new COVID-19 cases confirmed in Karnataka; total 144

Mangaluru, Apr 7:  In the wake of COVID-19 lockdown in the country, a delegation from Highland Islamic Forum, Mangalore headed by Rizwan Pandeshwar, HIF Ration Kit Co-coordinator met Mangalore South Constituency MLA Mr. Vedavysa Kamath, Mayor Mr. Diwakar and MCC  Opposition Leader Mr. Abdul Ravoof on 6th April with an aim to join their hands with our local authorities in a bid to serve the daily wage earning families in and around Mangalore, during this emergency period. HIF delegation included Secretary Ausaf Hussain, Executive members Nazim SS, Adel Parvez, Nabeel Kudroli and Saleem Makkah.

HIF delegates handed over 300 COVID-19 Emergency relief ration kits to these local authorities, of which 100 each will be distributed to the poor in their respective areas among all faiths irrespective of caste or religion. The ration kits included grocery items and other essential commodities.

HIF Delegation said that Highland Islamic Forum is a prestigious charitable organization in Mangalore operating in the undevided D.K. District since last 8 years offering their hands to the poor and needy families of all faiths like food for the orphans, blood to the patients, water during the crisis time, relief supplies during floods, medicine to the patients, ration kits and homes to the homeless.

During the drinking water crisis in 2016, HIF supplied water facilities to more than 1000 families in Mangalore.  Two years back during the flood, HIF provided necessary commodities to the flood victims in Dakshina Kannada District. During the shortage of blood in Mangalore hospitals, HIF arranges blood donors camps and provide the blood to the patients.  HIF spends one day with orphans every month. HIF charitable activities have been well recognized by the kind hearted people in Dakshina Kannada District.

MLA Vedavysa Kamath, Mayor Diwakar and Mangalore City Corporation opposition leader Abdul Ravoof lauded the selfless efforts of HIF team in serving the poor and needy families in the society.

Bengaluru, Jul 16: Former Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on Thursday hit out at state Health Minister B Sriramulu for stating that "only God can save Karnataka" from COVID-19 and asked him to resign from his post.

Speaking to media here in Bengaluru, Siddaramaiah said, "The government cannot say that we are helpless. Why is the government in power? You have power and you have money. It is your primary duty to serve the citizens of the state."

On being asked about Karnataka Health Minister's statement, the Congress leader said: "Let him resign and go out. God will help you only if you will put all your efforts."

Meanwhile, President of the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee DK Shivakumar tweeted "Karnataka's Health Minister saying 'Only God can save Karnataka' reflects poorly on @BSYBJP govt's ability to handle the Covid crisis. Why do we need such a government if they cannot tackle the pandemic?"

Sriramulu had said on Wednesday that either people should inculcate awareness or only God can save them from COVID-19.

"Who can save us at this time? It's either God or people should inculcate awareness in them. Congress leaders are involved in political mudslinging at this time. This is not fine and it will not help them in any way," the Minister had said.

"It is a crucial time, in the interest of the general public. I request all the Congress leaders not to indulge in loose talk regarding the issue, it leads to more panic situation among the general public. We are ready to adhere to any punishment if we did any wrong thing," he had added.

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.