Kundapur woman dies of A (H1N1) influenza in Mangaluru hospital

Mangaluru, June 28: In his apparent bid to win the hearts of the people of Tulu Nadu while leaving this coastal city, Dr P S Harsha, the outgoing Mangaluru city police commissioner, today took to social media and thanked the people. The language he chose for his prolonged Facebook post and one paragraph tweet was Tulu.

“Loveable people of Kudla! I have received the transfer order after serving as the Commissioner of Police of Mangaluru City for 11 months. (During this period) I worked with utmost honesty and pro-people approach with the complete cooperation of my department. I wholeheartedly thank all those who supported me,” tweeted Dr Harsha, who is now posted in Bengaluru as the Deputy Inspector General and Commissioner of Information and Public Relations.

In his Facebook post, Dr Harsha claimed that thanks to his initiative “My Beat My Pride”, the policing in the coastal city has strengthened. 

“My only intention was to put an end to rowdyism and illegal activities. I had given priority to curb the drug mafia. ‘My Beat My Pride’ became a successful initiative thanks to public support,” he said. 

The IPS officer went on to claim that with the with the co-operation of the senior officers, the police department managed to efficiently handle situations during anti-CAA and pro-CAA agitations in the city, detection of explosives at Mangaluru International Airport and also during the covid-19 pandemic. 

However, he did not mention about the death of two people in random police firing following a baton charge during anti-CAA protests in the city on December 19.

ಕುಡ್ಲದ ಮಾತ ಮೋಕೆದ ಬಂಧುಲೇ, 11 ತಿಂಗೊಳುರ್ದ್ ಕುಡ್ಲದ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಆಯುಕ್ತೆಯಾದ್ ಸೇವೆ ಮಂದಿನ ಎಂಕ್ ಇತ್ತೆ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಅವೋಂದುಂಡು.ಇಲಾಖೆದ ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣ ಸಹಕಾರದೊಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ಮಸ್ತ್ ಪ್ರಾಮಾಣಿಕ ಬೊಕ್ಕ ಜನಪರವಾದು ಎನ್ನ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯ ಮಲ್ತೊಂದು ಬೈದೆ.ಎಂಕ್ ಸಹಕಾರ ಬೆಂಬಲ ಕೊರ್ನ ಮಾತೆರೆಗ್ಲಾ ಉಡಲ್ ದಿಂಜಿನ‌ ಸೊಲ್ಮೆಲು. pic.twitter.com/y7rgQMoOwm

— Harsha IPS CP Mangaluru City (@compolmlr) June 28, 2020

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.