I was not in the car which met accident, says Mohammed Nalapad

Bengaluru, Jan 5: BJP leader and Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa once again blamed the Congress of creating 'confusion' among the Muslim community over the Citizenship (Amendment) Act-2019 while launching a door to door campaign to dispel such rumors.

Yediyurappa was on a door-to-door campaign to make people aware of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and to allay their fears.

"Unnecessarily, the members of Congress are creating confusion among the Muslim community. I assure you that not a single Muslim will be affected because of CAA," said B. S. Yediyurappa.

"Almost all previous Prime Ministers have supported it, now Congress is creating a problem so as to create confusion among Muslims. That's why we are out on the door-to-door campaign," he said.

The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, seeks to grant Indian citizenship to Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist and Parsi refugees from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh and who entered India on or before December 31, 2014.

New Delhi, Mar 25: The exercise to update the National Population Register (NPR) and the first phase of the Census 2021 will not be held as scheduled due to the 21-day lockdown announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, officials said on Tuesday.

Both the exercises were supposed to be carried out from April 1 to September 30.
Due to the prevailing situation, the NPR and Census exercises have been deferred till further orders, a senior home ministry official said.
The Prime Minister has announced a 21-day lockdown across the country from Tuesday night due to the outbreak of the coronavirus.

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.