7 BJP workers held for murder attempt on Muslim youth, attack on cops

Bengaluru, Mar 22: Monday's only pending II PU exam (English) and SSLC exams scheduled to start on March 27 have been postponed due to Covid-19 concerns. The new dates will be announced in April first week.

The decision was taken after a meeting with chief minister BS Yediyurappa on Sunday morning, said state primary and secondary education minister S Suresh Kumar.

Around 8.25 lakh students are to appear for the Class 10 exam.

"I appeal to SSLC students not to get frustrated. I know you're fully prepared, fully geared up. But this is a peculiar situation which calls for hard decisions. The new timetable will be published very soon. Students should treat is as an extended study leave. Please revise more. Do not treat this as a relaxation time. You'll have plenty of time to relax after the exams," he said.

Mangaluru, Feb 8: A speeding car fell off the newly-inaugurated Pumpwell flyover in the city after jumping the median and ramming into an oncoming car today. 

At least four persons have suffered injuries in the mishap involving a Maruti Alto and a Renault Duster. The condition of two is said to be extremely critical. The other two have suffered minor injuries.

The accident took place when the driver of the speeding Alto which was heading towards Kasaragod from Udupi lost control over his vehicle.

Towards the end of the flyover, car rammed into the divider and then hit the ill-fated Renault Duster which was coming from the opposite direction. The Alto then fell off the bridge. 

The accident caused traffic jam on the highway for some time. The flyover was inaugurated a week ago, after a decade long wait.

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.