Major credit for Army's surgical strike goes to PM Modi: Parrikar

Bengaluru, May 18: Senior Congress leader and former Union Minister Mallikarjuna Kharge on Monday slammed the State Government’s decision to appoint administrative committees to Panchayats, which completes their five-year term, shortly.

Speaking to media persons, the Congress leader described the State Government’s decision on appointing committees as a ‘death knell ‘ to the basic characters of the Panchayat bodies, which were elected on a non-party basis.

Strongly recommending the BJP-led government to desist from its decision, Kharge urged Chief minister B S Yediyurappa to extend the term of the elected bodies of the Panchayats by six months.

Bagalkot, April 7: A group of villagers on Monday attacked three Muslim men at Bidari village in Bagalkot district accusing them of being responsible for the spread of coronavirus in the country.

The three men belonging to Mahalingapura village were walking on the road when they were attacked with sticks by people even when they said that they were nowhere connected to Tablighi Jamaat.

This incident happened within the limits of Mudhol Police Station.

Meanwhile, Superintendent of Police Lokesh Jagasalar said that the police is investigating the matter and no one will be spared who all are involved in this act.

"No one will be spared and we have taken the incident seriously and finding whoever harassed three Muslim men, at no cost the incident be defended by anyone, it was unexpected and case will be booked and stringent action will be taken against those who are involved in the incident," Lokesh told news agency.

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.