Prices of vegetables, fruits, chicken soar in Mangaluru amid lockdown

Belgaum, Mar 26: The police on Thursday thrashed people who had gone to offer prayers at a mosque despite the nationwide lockdown in force.
In a video, the police personnel can be seen thrashing the people with batons while they were leaving after offering prayers at a local mosque here.
In another incident in Rajasthan's Pratapgarh, the police made few youngsters hop along a road and even gave the 'murga,' punishment to a few of them for violating the restrictions.
Similarly in Uttar Pradesh's Budaun, the police made people hop along a road with their bags strapped on their backs as a punishment. The people were possibly going to their native places.
In the video of the Budaun incident, a few men can be seen being made to hop along the road with a stick-wielding policeman keeping a watch.
SSP Budaun told ANI that an investigation is being conducted into the incident and expressed an apology for the police's behaviour.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi had announced a 21-day countrywide lockdown to check the spread of coronavirus, saying that "social distancing" is the only option to deal with the highly contagious disease.

Bengaluru, Apr 16: A 66-year old man from the city, became the thirteenth COVID-19 related fatality in Karnataka, Health Department officials said on Thursday.

The elderly patient from Bengaluru, who was coronavirus positive died on April 15 at Victoria Hospital in the city, officials said.

"He was referred from a private hospital and was admitted in Victoria Hospital and was on ventilator support since April 10," they added.

A 80-year old woman in Belagavi and a 65-year old man from Chikkaballapura had also died on Wednesday.

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.