Hindu-Muslim amity to the fore at this Urus

Bengaluru, May 20: Karnataka Congress leaders held a protest against the state government against amending of APMC Act, at the premises of Vidhan Soudha here.

Few days ago, Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa had said that the new amendment in the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) Act will substantially aid the farmers in getting remunerative price for their produce.

"Amendment will not dilute the powers of the work of the APMCs. All these marketing activities will be monitored by the Directorate of State APMC. This new amendment Act will benefit farmers in improving their income & suffering from losses due to market fluctuations," the Karnataka CM tweeted.

Yediyurappa further said that the amendment will indirectly help farmers in doubling their income by 2022.

"This amendment will indirectly help farmers in doubling their income by 2022. I want to clarify that we have not removed the APMC Act, we are only amending 2 sections of the APMC Act which enable farmers to sell their produce at the markets where they intend to," he tweeted.

Bengaluru, Mar 29: Seven new COVID-19 cases have been confirmed in Karnataka since Saturday 5 pm to 2 pm on Sunday.

The total number of positive cases in the state stands at 83, out of which five have been cured/discharged and three have lost their lives, according to the Karnataka Health Department.

A total of 979 confirmed cases of COVID-19 have been reported in India, informed the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on Sunday.

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.