Coastal Karnataka has become a hotbed of ‘jihadi activities: Shobha in Lok Sabha

Mangaluru/Bengaluru, Jan 23: A day after two senior functionaries of the BJP — a deputy chief minister and a political secretary to the chief minister — made provocative speeches against a minority community, Nalin Kumar Kateel, state president of the saffron party, on Wednesday issued a gag order, banning functionaries from talking on issues without the party’s approval.

Deputy CM Govind Karjol and Honnalli legislator MP Renukacharya had passed comments castigating Muslims, in the process seriously denting the image of the party which is trying to avoid controversies in its efforts to allay fears on the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. The comments come on the heels of Ballari City legislator Somashekara Reddy warning Muslims at a pro-CAA rally of repercussions if they do not fall in line.

Kateel said a gag order has been “clearly” communicated to all concerned at a recent meeting that he and chief minister BS Yediyurappa had chaired. “Our message to party functionaries is in line with what Prime Minister Narendra Modi has told his council of ministers and party MPs — to focus on their work and constituencies rather than comment on issues. Let them leave this task to official spokespersons of the party,” Kateel said.

However, it appears the message hasn’t gone through to Renukacharya, Yediyurappa’s political secretary. A day after courting controversy by saying anti-nationals were using mosques to store weapons, Renukacharya said he stood by his comments and launched a fresh tirade against madrasas, saying they were manipulating youth and encouraging terrorism.

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Renukacharya said: “In our [temple-run] institutions, nothing anti-national is taught. We only teach values that are mandated for life. But at madrasas, youth are manipulated by teaching terrorism. Why do we need such schools? The majority of those accused of terrorism are Muslims.”

He immediately followed up this comment by saying he did not imply all Muslims were terrorists. The Honnalli MLA justified his comments saying he did not receive a single Muslim vote in the 2018 assembly elections. “They [Muslims] come to us seeking our help. They want the BJP for development, but when it comes to elections, they vote for Congress and JD(S),” Renukacharya said. He said no “special packages” will be distributed to Muslims in his constituency.

Udupi, May 2: During the lockdown period the Department of Public Library digitised more books to the Karnataka Digital Public Library (KDPL).

According to the data released by the KDPL issued here on Saturday , as on April 29, 89,239 people from the State have already registered for the digital library.  From these 1,807 are from Dakshina Kannada district and 605 from the Udupi district.

The digital library already has a repository of 35,500 e-books, 4,800 videos, 59,980 e-journals and 1,112 items for children.

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.