Congress ready to join hands with JD(S) in hung Panchayats

Bengaluru, Jan 21: A massive protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), National Register of Citizens (NRC), and National Population Register (NPR) was witnessed at Shivajinagar's Chandni Chowk area on Tuesday.

Scores of people came together carrying national flags and placards to register their protest in the city.

Speaking to ANI, a protester said, "People of all religious community have assembled here in Chandni Chowk to protest against CAA, NRC, and NPR. We the people of India are against this law."

Terming the law as anti-constitutional, he said that we support all the states who oppose the CAA. We demand the revocation of CAA and the government should remove conditions in NPR which lead to NRC.

CAA grants citizenship to Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Parsi, Buddhist and Christian communities fleeing religious persecution from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh and who came to India on or before December 31, 2014.

Mangaluru, Jan 8: A 23-year-old youth has been booked under the POCSO Act on charges of abduction and sexual abuse of a minor girl.

Police said on Wednesday day that the accused identified as Aneesh Dias, a resident of Chikkamadnur has reportedly gone absconding. The victim, who hails from Puttur, is a I PU college student.

The victim's parents had filed a missing complaint with Puttur Rural police as their daughter did not return home after leaving home for college. The police investigating the complaint traced the girl.

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.