Free UPSC coaching for minorities

Dubai, Apr 14: Around 2,500 Indians have approached Indian missions in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) seeking help to be flown home during the ongoing coronavirus lockdown, top diplomats have said.

The Indian Embassy in Abu Dhabi and the Indian Consulate in Dubai together have received requests from "a little more than 1,000 individuals" while the latter has received an additional request from an employer who has laid-off around 1,000 Indian workers, reports Gulf News on Monday.

According to the Indian Ambassador to the UAE Pavan Kapoor, the missions have not been bombarded with mass requests from the people who wish to take an immediate flight home unlike widespread reports on social media.

Most of the individuals who have expressed their interest to return home are visitors and those who lost their jobs, he told Gulf News.

Consul General of India in Dubai, Vipul said his mission had received nearly 1000 requests via email and phone from people who want to return home.

"A majority of them are visit visa holders. On Sunday, we got information about another large group of around 1,000 Indian workers who have lost jobs. The employer has got in touch to know the options to send them back home as early as possible," he told Gulf News.

However, the diplomatic heads refuted unverified reports that claim tens of thousands of Indians were scrambling to fly home during the pandemic.

They added that the missions have been aiding hundreds of workers, who have been left in the lurch by their employers, with provisions.

The Indian government had said that flight services cannot be resumed during the lockdown period, which has now been extended till May 3.

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.