Pakistani roommate striving for release of Udupi man arrested in Saudi over offensive Facebook post

Bengaluru, Jun 20: Amid calls for boycott of Chinese products in the backdrop of Indo-China border face-off, former Karnataka chief minister HD Kumaraswamy sought to know from the BJP government in Karnataka the status of the "Compete with China" policy brought during the previous JDS-Congress rule.

Boycotting Chinese products was not easy like sloganeering but required a creative policy and the coalition government's initiative was a model for it, he said in a series of tweets.

"After the border skirmish, some people got the realisation to boycott the Chinese products but during my tenure (as chief minister) a serious thought was given to it," the JDS leader said.

He was apparently referring to growing clamour for boycott of China-made products after a violent clash between Indian and Chinese troops in the Galwan Valley in Ladakh left 20 Indian Army personnel dead early this week.

Mr Kumaraswamy said he had brought the Compete With China policy to effectively deal with the neighbouring country.

"My government's objective was to offer jobs to the local residents, snatch away market opportunities for China and discard the Chinese products."

"However, what has the present government done to our scheme? It is not known whether it is still continuing or not," Mr Kumaraswamy said.

The Kumarswamy government had identified clusters and earmarked Rs 2,000 crore for their development.

Kalaburagi, Mar 5: Kalaburagi Police has issued a second notice to AIMIM leader Waris Pathan, for his controversial remark, directing him to appear before the Investigation Officer on March 8 and give his statement.

Earlier, Kalaburagi Police Commissioner MM Nagaraj said that the police had served notice to Pathan and asked him to appear on February 29 before Investigation Officer.

On February 20, while addressing an anti-CAA rally at Kalaburagi, Pathan had said, "time has now come for us to unite and achieve freedom. Remember we are 15 crore but can dominate over 100 crores."

However, Pathan later took back his words and had said he had not targeted any community but had spoken against members of some organisations.

"If any of my words have hurt someone, I take them back as I am a true Indian," he had said.

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.