Man suffers burns at AC factory, forum alleges negligence

Bengaluru, Mar 27: Karnataka has recorded the third death due to the Covid-19 virus. It is a man from Tumakuru with a travel history to Delhi. He had been put in isolation at the District Hospital in Tumakuru on March 24.

His travel history indicates that he travelled to New Delhi by the Sampark Kranti Express (Coach S6) on March 5 along with 13 members. They reached Hazrat Nizamuddin station in New Delhi on March 7 and went to the Jamia Masjid and rented an room at a lodge nearby.

He began the return journey to Karnataka by the Kongu Express on March 11 in Coach no. S9. On March 18, he developed cough and fever and visited a private hospital the next day. He was referred to the District Hospital in Tumakuru but on March 24, he left the hospital against medical advice and went to a private medical facility. He was referred back to the District Hospital, where he was put isolation.

Hubli, Feb 19: The Karnataka Police on Wednesday registered a case against unknown persons for assaulting three Kashmiri students in the court premises here.

A suo motu FIR has been registered at Vidyanagar police station of Hubli in which assault charges have been filed against 10 to 15 unknown people.

It can be recalled that on February 17 these three Kashmiri students were attacked in court premises after they were produced in court on charges of sedition.

The Kashmiri students were arrested here on February 15 after their video in which they are seen allegedly raising pro-Pakistan slogans went viral.

The students were studying at the KLE Institute of Technology on a central government scholarship.

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.