To strengthen party at booth level, BJP begins district-wise meetings

Bengaluru, Jan 6: Activist Irom Chanu Sharmila took part in a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), National Register of Citizens (NRC) and National Population Register (NPR) at Sir Puttanna Chetty Town Hall here on Sunday.

Sharmila, who came in the protest along with her child, took part in a 'burqa and bindi' protest marking the birth anniversary of social reformer Savitribai Phule.

Protests have erupted across the country over the CAA which grants citizenship to Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Parsi, Buddhist, and Christian refugees from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, who came to India on or before December 31, 2014.

Bengaluru, May 25: Heavy rain accompanied by strong winds that lashed Bengaluru last evening left hundreds of trees uprooted near the BTM layout and other areas.

The India Meteorological Department (IMD) has predicted a thunderstorm accompanied with lightning in Karnataka for the next five days.

"Thunderstorm accompanied with lightning at will prevail at isolated places over Gangetic West Bengal, Odisha, Coastal Andhra Pradesh and Yanam, South Interior Karnataka, Kerala and Mahe and Tamilnadu, Puducherry and Karaikal," the IMD said its All Indian Weather Forecast Bulletin.

According to the forecasting agency, due to strong southerly wind from the Bay of Bengal to northeast India at lower tropospheric levels, heavy to very heavy rainfall with extremely heavy falls likely at isolated places over parts of northeastern states.

In addition to that heavy to very heavy rainfall at isolated places over adjoining parts of east India during 24th-28th. "Heavy rainfall at isolated places over parts south peninsular India from May 26th-28th, 2020," the IMD said its All Indian Weather Forecast Bulletin.

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.