Finally CM breaks silence on Eid, condemns lynching of Muslim boy

Bengaluru, Jul 23: A city hospital here has banned woman Covid patients from wearing dupatta (long scarf) or similar garments, after two women committed suicide, said an official on Thursday.

"Two patients committed suicides with their sarees, that's why we have changed the dress code," KC General Hospital superintendent Venkateshaiah said.

As part of the new dress code, the hospital has mandated that women patients should wear operation theatre dress, even though some older patients are not in favour of it.

Incidentally, both the deceased women went to the bathroom and hanged themselves with their sarees.

Meanwhile, the hospital has also asked the neighbouring patients to be vigilant and accompany them to the washroom.

"With the advice of our psychologist, two adjacent patients have been given the precaution that whenever a depressed patient goes to the bathroom, please go with them and stand outside to take care of them," said Vekateshaiah.

Similarly, the hospital is also thinking of giving a small dose of sedation to make them sleep in the night to avoid waking up.

To rejuvenate the spirits of the patients, the hospital has arranged televisions to show them the best health practices, programmes on meditation, movies and entertainment.

"We are not showing them only news, but also good food habits, how to take care of oneself amid Covid," he said.

Amidst all these efforts, the hospital's psychologist will continuously monitor the mental health of the patients with an aim to avoid any untoward incident.

Bengaluru continues to report the highest number of Covid cases, recording 2,050 on Wednesday, raising the city tally to 36,993, out of which 27,969 are active.

Bengaluru, May 24: A couple got married in Bengaluru today, even as Karnataka government has announced a complete lockdown on Sundays, as part of the fourth phase of COVID-19 shutdown till the end of this month.

The marriage ceremony on this Sunday was possible thanks to a clarification given by the state government for marriages, which has been already scheduled for May 24 and May 31 to be exempted from the Sunday complete lockdown.

At today's wedding, the rituals were performed with compliance of all guidelines including ensuring social distancing and capping the number of guests at 50.

Satish, the groom said, "Government has allowed weddings with up to 50 people in attendance but we decided to invite only 25 people to the ceremony".

Meanwhile, in the Honnali Honnali area of Davanagere, BJP MLA MP Renukacharya distributed masks to three newly-wed couples.

As per an earlier advisory issued by the State government more than 50 guests, no air conditioning, and the consumption of liquor and paan are among the guidelines to be followed for holding weddings in the state. Also, people aged above 65 and below 10 as well as pregnant women have been barred from participating in the event.

According to the advisory, sanitisers should be provided at the entry and other appropriate places at the venue. Also, thermal screening of all persons shall be conducted at the entry of the venue. The scanner should be held 3-15 cms away from a person's forehead.

Apart from this, the venue shall be "clean and hygienic," and a "nodal person shall be identified for overseeing the arrangements and coordination at the venue." Also, a list of attendees with contact details has to be maintained and all guests should have downloaded Aarogya Setu app.

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.