Mangaluru: Thousands travel from Ullal to join anti-CAA protest in Kasba Bengre

Bengaluru, Feb 9: A man in Karnataka fled just before his wedding after his parents cancelled the ceremony over a disagreement about the saree that the bride wore duiring a ritual.

BN Raghukumar, who belonged to a village near Karnataka's Hassan town, did not to show up at his wedding, acting on the directions of his parents. The incident took place on Wednesday.

"We have registered a cheating case against Raghukumar. He is absconding," Hassan Superintendent of Police Srinivas Gowda told news agency. The police have also registered a case against the groom's parents.

Raghukumar and BR Sangeetha fell in love a year ago and decided to get married with the consent of their respective families.

However, Raghukumar's parents asked Sangeetha to change her saree during some rituals as they were not happy with its quality.

Following this dispute, the groom's parents cancelled the wedding scheduled on Thursday and directed their son to run away.

Udupi, Apr 7: The district administrations of Udupi and Uttara Kannada districts have appealed to the state government to request Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) to allow COVID-19 tests at Manipal’s Kasturba Hospital.

Kasturba Hospital was granted approval by the ICMR to conduct tests on samples to detect the novel coronavirus on March 24, however it rescinded it later.

Udupi district Deputy Commissioner (DC) G Jagadeesha stated that the Council did not provide any reason for the cancellation of approval; his office has requested the Chief Secretary to pressurise the Council in granting approval again.

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.