Mangaluru: Cyanide Mohan convicted for murder of woman in 17th case

Bengaluru, June 1: Prime Minister Narendra Modi today praised the Karnataka government for its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Addressing the silver jubilee celebrations of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS) via a digital platform, he spoke about the Karnataka government's efforts.

He appreciated the work of front-line warriors who are fighting every day in the war against COVID-19 and stressed the need to respect them.

"Doctors and other medical workers are soldiers without wearing the uniform of soldiers. Any kind of attack or violence against them is not acceptable," said Modi.

"There are incidents of violence against the front-line warriors. Any kind of abuse, violence or rude behaviour is not acceptable. The world is looking at doctors and medical staff with gratitude," he said.

"This is the biggest crisis since the two World Wars," the prime minister said. "Pre- and post-COVID-19, the world will be different. The discussions now at a global level are humanity-centric."

Stressing the importance of medical infrastructure, the prime minister spoke about the decision taken by the Union Government to set up a medical college in every district.

"A nation like ours has to have the medical infrastructure and medical education. Now, every district is going to have a medical college," he said.

However, the PM remained silent on salaries of front-line warriors. The Karnataka government has so far not released the salaries of doctors, nurses and lab technicians hired under National Health Mission.

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.