Portfolios for new ministers today, loyalists will be inducted soon: BSY

Bengaluru, May 7: A 55-year old woman from Davanagere became the 30th COVID-19 related fatality in Karnataka, where a total number of infections has crossed 700-mark, with eight new positive cases being confirmed, the health department said on Thursday.

The deceased woman was a known case of diabetes and hypertension, she was admitted with a complaint of Severe Acute Respiratory Infection (SARI) and was on a ventilator, the department said in its mid-day situation update.

She died today at a designated hospital in Davanagere, it said.

"Eight new positive cases have been reported from last evening to this noon...

Till date 701 COVID-19 positive cases have been confirmed. This includes 30 deaths and 363 discharges," the update said.

The eight new cases reported include three from Davangere, indulging the deceased patient; also three from Kalaburagi, and one each from Hirebagewadi in Belagavi district and Bengaluru urban.

While four cases are contacts of patients earlier tested positive, three are with the history of Influenza-Like Illness (ILI) and one is a SARI case.

Five among eight new cases are women and three are men.

Bengaluru, May 18: Karnataka chief minister B S Yediyurappa today announced lockdown relaxations from tomorrow (May 19) across the state. As per new guidelines public transport services will start operations outside COVID-19 containment zones in the state. 

 “To facilitate easy movements of citizens, services of the BMTC, KSRTC, NEKRTC and NWKRTC will start from Tuesday morning, except in containment zones. Even private buses can ply,” Yediyurappa said, after discussing the Centre's Lockdown 4.0 guidelines with his Cabinet colleagues and officials. 

“The only condition is that only 30 people should travel in one bus so as to ensure social distancing,” the CM said. 

He also clarified that bus fares will not be hiked. “I know there will be losses incurred. The government will bear the losses,” he said. 

Auto rickshaws, taxis and maxi cabs (six-passenger vehicles) will also be allowed to operate. “Auto rickshaws and taxis will have a driver and two passengers. Maxi cabs will have a driver and three passengers,” Yediyurappa said. 

All parks in the state will be open 7 am to 9 am and 5 pm to 7 pm. 

Starting Tuesday, all shops except malls and theatres can open. “This includes salons,” the CM said. 

All relaxation will cease to exist every Sunday, the CM said. “Every Sunday will be a complete lockdown. There’ll be no shops and the movement of people. It’ll be a complete rest day,” he said. 

The existing curfew from 7 pm to 7 am will continue on all days, which means public transport services will not be allowed during this time. 

Trains will run within the state, but interstate trains will not be allowed till May 31, the CM said. 

It is mandatory for citizens to wear masks in public. “Not wearing a mask will be penalised,” Yediyurappa said. 

On the classification of zones, Yediyurappa said the government's main focus was containment zones. “We're particular about containment zones. In the Karwar district, for example, Bhatkal will be a containment zone and no other taluk will have restrictions,” he said. 

However, the government will review the relaxation based on how things pan out. “States have been given the freedom, so we can withdraw or modify as necessary,” he 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.