Muslim family kicked off United Airlines flight for how they looked'

Bengaluru, Mar 18: Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa on Wednesday said that the lockdown in the state will continue till March 31st. However restaurants and hotels will remain open.

Speaking to reporters here, Yediyurappa had said, "...we need to take more stringent measures, when the US President has recommended avoiding gatherings ofmore than 10 people in his country. We will discuss in the cabinet and take all necessary measures."

Two more coronavirus cases have been registered in Bengaluru on Wednesday, 18 March, taking the total infected cases to 13, ANI reported quoting state Health Minister B Sriramulu.

Meanwhile, Dental clinics in Bengaluru have shut shop after order from Indian Dental Association and Karnataka State Denta Council. The doctors have been advised to treat the patients only if there is an emergency.

In Udupit distrcit, Section 144(3) have been imposed across the district by DC G Jagadish.

No religious events allowed, devotees should not enter temples, churches or Masjid's in groups. Tourist locations closed. Students in PGs and Hostels asked to return home.

While, schools and colleges remained shut, IT professionals and other professionals working in air- conditioned places were advised to work from home. Till Tuesday evening, 13 COVID-19 positive cases have been reported in Karnataka, including one death.

The State government had on March 13 leapt into action announcing lock-down of malls, cinema theatres, pubs and night clubs for a week.

Instructions were also given to stop all kinds of exhibitions, summer camps, conferences, fairs, marriages, sports and engagement events and birthday parties state-wide for a week from Saturday.

While, schools and colleges remained shut, IT professionals and other professionals working in air- conditioned places were advised to work from home. Till Tuesday evening, 11 COVID-19 positive cases have been reported in Karnataka, including one death.

The Ministry of External Affairs confirmed that there are 276 coronavirus infected Indians abroad - 255 in Iran, 12 in UAE, five in Italy, one each in Sri Lanka, Hong Kong SAR, Kuwait, and Rwanda.

Earlier in the day, the total number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in India neared 150, according to the Health Ministry data.

Managluru, May 15: Kannadigas in Saudi Arabia deserve more attention from the government amidst covid-19 crisis as they remit huge amount of money to their home state and ultimately get no benefit, opined U T Khader, Mangaluru MLA.

The former minister held a video conference with stranded Kannadigas in Saudi Arabia on May 15 and assured to do his best to convince the Centre to operate more repatriation flights from Saudi Arabia to Karnataka. 

He also said that he would urge the chief minister of Karnataka to announce a separate rehabilitation package for Indian expatriates who have lost their jobs in Gulf countries amidst covid-19 lockdown.

Mr Khader also interacted with two medical emergency patients and promised them to inform the Indian embassy in Riyadh to facilitate their homeward journey via Dammam-Bengaluru flight in the second phase of Vande Bharat Mission. 

Mr Khader expressed regret over the inept handling of passengers from Dubai at Mangaluru International Airport on May 12 and said that next batch of passengers would not face such problems on arrival.

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.