Santhosh Shetty reelected KWAR prez, Muzaffar Ali vice-prez; Nelson D'souza new gen secretary

Jan 14: A police complaint was lodged on Tuesday against BJP West Bengal unit president Dilip Ghosh for his threat to "beat up" and "shoot' " anti-CAA protesters, whom he called "infiltrators".

The complaint was registered in Ranaghat police station of Nadia district by a Trinamool Congress worker Krishnendu Banerjee, who alleged that Ghosh was inciting communal passion.

Addressing a party rally on Sunday in Ranathat, about 80 km from Kolkata, Ghosh went ballistic, saying the governments in BJP-ruled Assam, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh have shot dead "like dogs" those protesting against the new Citizenship (Amendment) Act.

Alleging there were one crore infiltrators in the state, Ghosh had accused them of destroying public property worth Rs 500-600 crore during the violent protests against the CAA last month

"Friends, please know these people who are opposing Hindus and Bengalis. In whose interest are they doing this? There are one crore infiltrators. They are having their meals and staying here on our money".

He accused the state's Mamata Banerjee government of remaining silent a spectator to the violence.

"This (violence) happened because there was neither any baton charge, nor firing, nor was any FIR filed. Why? Didi's police did not arrest anybody... because they vote for her".

He then referred to the three states ruled by the BJP.

"In Assam, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh, our governments have shot dead these devils like dogs. They were taken elsewhere and then again cases were filed against them. They will come here, eat, stay, and then destroy property. Do they think this is their zamindari?"

He had said once a BJP government was installed in Bengal, "We will hit them with sticks, shoot them and also send them to jail. Our governments have done exactly that. Mamata Banerjee doesn't have the guts to do anything".

However, his incendiary comments did not meet the approval of sections in the party.

Union Minister Babul Supriyo came out with a tweet slamming Ghosh and distancing the BJP from the comments.

"Very irresponsible of Dilip Da to have said what he said. It is a figment of his imagination... BJP governments in UP and Assam have never resorted to shooting people for whatever reason," he tweeted.

Supriyo's tweet was retweeted by nominated Rajya Sabha member Swapan Dasgupta, considered close to both Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah.

But Ghosh did not budge and aggressively asked whether the party was being run by Shah or Supriyo.

"People comment according to their understanding. What I feel is that our governments have done it, and so I said all that. If we get a chance we will also do such things," he said, sticking to his earlier comments.

Supriyo also hit back. "Just as he has remarked 'whatever Babul Supriyo has understood he has said', similarly I am saying this is Dilip da's personal opinion, and it has no connection with the party".

Mangaluru, Jul 20:  Ananthapadmanabha temple at Kudupu on the outskirts of Mangaluru will be closed for devotees on the occasion of Nagara Panchami on July 25 due to Covid-19.

Ananthapadmanabha temple at Kudupu is one of the famous temples in Dakshina Kannada dedicated to Naga (Serpent God) where Nagara Panchami is celebrated in a grand way.  The temple committee said that "Nagara Panchami will be observed on July 25. To avoid large gatherings, the entry of devotees is banned. The devotees should not visit the temple, thereby extend cooperation with the temple committee."

On the day of Nagara Panchami, no sevas, theertha and prasadam will be distributed. There will be no mass feeding as well.

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.