Now, Gau Raksha Dal members to go on patrol across Dakshina Kannada

Bengaluru, Apr 2: A health worker, who was part of a team fighting against the Coronavirus disease in the city, was allegedly attacked by a mob and duped of her belongings at the Sadiq Layout in the Shivajinagar area on Thursday.

According to police sources, the health worker came under attack by a mob of youths when she was collecting data from those who were sick in the locality.

Bengaluru, May 27: A 69-year-old woman from Yadgiri became the 45th COVID-19 related fatality in Karnataka, where 122 fresh cases have been reported, taking the total number of infections in the state to 2,405, the health department said on Wednesday.

With 45 deaths and 762 discharges, there are 1,596 active coronavirus cases in the state, the department said in its mid-day bulletin. It said, the deceased woman, a returnee from Maharashtra was brought dead to designated hospital in Yadgiri on May 20 and tested positive for COVID-19.

Fourteen patients have been discharged in the state so far on Wednesday. Of the 122 new cases, 108 are returnees from neighboring Maharashtra, three from Tamil Nadu, and one each from Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala and Delhi. While two are returnees from foreign countries- one each from UAE and Nepal.

Remaining four cases are contact of patients earlier tested positive.

Among the districts where new cases were reported, Kalaburagi accounted for 28, Yadgiri 16, Hassan 15, Bidar 13, Dakshina Kannada 11, Udupi 9, Bengaluru Urban 6, five each from Uttara Kannada and Raichur, Belagavi 4, Chikkamagaluru 3, two each from Bengaluru Rural and Vijayapura, and one each from Ballari, Mandya and Tumakuru.

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.