Kashmiri woman Iram Habib gives wings to her aspirations

Apr 23: An FIR has been registered in Nagpur against Republic TV channel's editor Arnab Goswami for promoting social disharmony and accusing Congress President Sonia Gandhi of orchestrating the Palghar lynching.

Three Mumbai residents, including two sadhus, who were on their way to Silvassa on April 16, were lynched by a mob in Gadakchinchale village of Palghar district on the suspicion that they were thieves. Nagpur Police Commissioner B K Upadhyaya said they received a complaint which was turned into an FIR at Sadar police station.

DCP Vinita Sahu said Goswami has been booked under sections 117 (abetting commission of offence by the public or by more than 10 persons), 120 (B) (criminal conspiracy), 153 (A) (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), 153 (B) (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration), 295 (A) (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs), 290-A (public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for), 500 (defamation), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the ipc. Another FIR was filed against him in Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

In a statement condemning Goswami, Maharashtra Congress said the killing has been wrongly given a communal angle despite ample proof of the contrary. "At a time when country is fighting against coronavirus pandemic, it is very unfortunate that a section of media as well as politicians are trying to create social unrest... [and] spread racial and religious hatred in society. Goswami has tried to create misogyny against women in the society. He made an outrageous remark against the Congress president on a live TV programme. This is completely unethical journalism and we publicly protest it. We believe in brotherhood and cannot accept such animosity. This will be dangerous for the unity and integrity of the country (sic)," it said.

Mangaluru, Feb 3: After neighbouring reported the second confirmed case of dreaded Coronavirus, the government of Karnataka today ordered high alert across border districts including Dakshina Kannada.

Apart from Dakshina Kannada, district administrations in Kodagu, Chamarajanagar and Mysuru that share boundary with Kerala have been put on high alert over the movement of people with suspected cases.

In a statement released on Monday, the Health and Family welfare department said that these districts have been directed to immediately report to the State Surveillance Unit (SSU) if they come across any suspected cases of people infected with Coronavirus.

Currently, about 51 people who returned from Coronavirus-affected regions have been identified and 46 are under home isolation across Karnataka.

So far, 44 samples have been sent to the National Institute of Virology, Pune for analysis and out of which 29 samples have revealed negative results. Yet, the state government has put in all possible measures to check the spread of the virus in any part of the state.

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.