Fishermen abstain from fishing for non-recovery of drowned fisherman's body

Bengaluru, Jun 24: Former Karnataka Chief Minister and Congress leader Siddaramaiah criticised the current state government rates for COVID-19 treatment in private hospitals and said that the patients must be treated free of charge in all hospitals.

"The state government has fixed rates for treating COVID-19. The current rates are shocking to the people," Siddaramaiah said.
Questioning the state government, he said, "Where can people pay these rates fixed by the government per day? Looking at these rates can be heartbreaking for the people. This raises the question of whether the government is sensitive to people's issues."

"The government must promptly announce free treatment and set up a standard treatment protocol. The government should appoint a panel of experts to continuously monitor whether treatment is being properly administered and create an environment where the public is free from anxiety," Siddaramaiah added.

Karnataka on Tuesday reported 322 fresh COVID-19 positive cases and eight deaths.
According to the state health department, the total number of positive cases has mounted to 9,721 and 150 deaths. So far, 6,004 people have been discharged. 

Mangaluru: The Karnataka-Kerala border closure at Talapady amidst nationwide Covid-19 lockdown has not only prevented the movement of vehicles and people from Kasaragod to Mangaluru but also stopped the supply of life-saving drugs from Karnataka’s medical hub to its bordering district.

Hundreds of people from Kasaragod and Kannur districts who were treated in hospitals of Mangaluru for past several years are still dependent on some of the medicines that are available only in Mangaluru. Such medicines have become inaccessible for Keralites following the border closure. Every day, a number of people from Kerala call their acquaintances in Mangaluru to see if there is a way to get medicine.

In fact, Karnataka government has blocked all 23 roads that connect the state with Kerala. The reason given was, Kasaragod is the hotbed of coronavirus and allowing traffic even in emergency cases might lead to spread of Covid-19 in border districts of Dakshina Kannada, Kodagu and Mysuru. The attitude has resulted in the death of around a dozen people in Kasaragod district in last couple of weeks.

Even after the intervention of the Supreme Court a few days ago, the authorities in Karnataka are facing the allegation of being hostile either by blocking the way ahead or turning a deaf ear to the patients reaching their border. 

At this juncture, three Good Samaritans – P K G Anoop Kumar of Canara Engineering College, Mangaluru, Satheesh Shetty of Kasaragod Patla and P Jayaprakash of Ponnangala – have come to the aid of the Malayalee patients who are dependent on medicines from Mangaluru. 

The three activists who are currently staying (in fact stranded amidst lockdown) in Mangaluru, are delivering life-saving medicines to patients in Kerala through Kerala fire servicemen and policemen posted at the Talapady border. 

Anoop Kumar says that took the initiative after a woman, Maria Augustine from Chemberi (Taliparamba) Nellikkutty, contacted him for a medicine. He managed to buy it from a medical store in the port city and handed it over to a Kerala fire serviceman at Talapady border. 

All three are activists of Communist Party of India (Marxist). After moving to Mangaluru, they set up ‘We Donate Charitable Society’ to donate blood. The activists say that they are ready to dispatch medicines from Mangaluru to any person in Kerala. Those Keralites who are in need of medicines from may contact: 888471344 - Anoop, 9895135881 - Jayaprakash

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.