Pampa award for poet KS Nissar Ahmed

Bengaluru, May 28: A complaint has been filed against BJP Karnataka state president and Lok Sabha member Nalin Kumar Kateel by the Congress Legislators charging him with issuing false information on Coronavirus to mislead the people.

The complaint was filed by MLCs Ivan D’Souza and Prakash Rathod at Vidhana Soudha police station on Thursday.

In the complaint they had alleged that “Kateel has been spreading false information that the position of World Health Organization’s (WHO) Chairman was given to India in appreciation of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s achievement in Coronavirus management. 

In reality, the position was given to India on the basis of rotation. India’s stature gets affected because of such childish statements at the international level.”

Udupi, May 2: All the 18 people who were advised self-quarantine in connection with the Thekkatte petrol bunk incident have been tested negative, however, they were asked to continue the 14-day quarantine, said DHO Sudhirchandra Suda on Saturday.

the petrol bunk at Thekkatte was sealed after a Covid infected person had food and took bath at the petrol bunk, while he was travelling from Mumbai to Mandya.

The employees and the owner of the petrol bunk along with the six employees at Sasthana toll gate were asked to quarantine themselves for 14 days.

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.