Thank you UCA: 'Saint of Letters' Harekala Hajabba enters new house

Mangaluru, May 5: The Dakshina Kannada district administration has denotified two containment zones, Sampya in Puttur and Thumbe in Bantwal. They were declared containment zones after one coronavirus positive case was reported from each area.

All the primary and secondary contacts of the patients have completed home quarantine period, said DC Sindhu B Rupesh.

The district administration hitherto had already denotified three other such containment zones based on a report of DHO,  after no new case was reported in the area in the last 28 days.

At present, the district has six containment zones-- Shakthinagara, Boloor, First Neuro Hospital in Mangaluru city, Uppinangady in Puttur, Kasaba and Narikombu in Bantwal taluk.

Bengaluru, Mar 10: Three more positive COVID-19 cases have been confirmed in Karnataka taking the tally to four, state Health Minister B Sriramulu on Tuesday informed.

"Their family members have been isolated and their health is being monitored. I urge citizens to take precautionary measures and co-operate in preventing the spread of this infection," Sriramulu said.

As on Monday, the national tally of persons affected by the coronavirus is 45.

According to the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), in the past 24 hours, one positive case from Kerala, two from Pune, and three from Bengaluru have been confirmed.

Apart from the ICMR; National Institute of Virology in Pune; 51 Virus Research and Diagnostic Laboratories; and National Centre for Disease Control, New Delhi are carrying out tests for COVID-19.

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.