Why BJP not pressurizing PM Modi to ban beef trade, asks MLA Firoz Sait

Bengaluru, Jul 21: Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa on Tuesday said that everyone has to fight COVID-19 while maintaining a stable economy and lockdown is not the solution.

While briefing the media after a meeting with Health Minister B Sriramulu and officials here, CM Yediyurappa said, "There will be no lockdown from tomorrow, people need to get back to work, the economy is also very important. We have to fight COVID-19 while maintaining a stable economy. Lockdown is not the solution, now restrictions will be placed only in containment zones."

"People who came from Maharastra and Tamil Nadu added to the COVID-19 cases in Karnataka. Experts have suggested a 5T strategy - Trace, Track, Test, Treat and Technology. Our COVID warriors are working day and night to safeguard the people of the state, we have to maintain social distance, wear a mask while going out," he added.

CM Yediyurappa further said that more than 80 per cent COVID-19 cases in the state are asymptomatic.

"Five five per cent need ICU or ventilators, 11,230 beds are kept ready for the use of people including private hospitals, medical colleges. The real-time dashboard is ready to serve the people. Now onwards, test report will be given within 24 hours. SSLC exams were conducted successfully. More than 8 lakh students wrote exams in such a situation," he said.

Commenting upon the allegations of COVID-19 mismanagement labelled by opposition leaders, CM Yediyurappa said, "I request all the opposition leaders not to make unnecessary comments. I request Siddaramaiah, D K Shivakumar and others to suggest us valuably to fight corona together."

"We will give all the details which are required to D K Shivakumar, Siddaramaih, H D Kumaraswamy. Not even one-rupee corruption is done in COVID-19 management. We will give you all details. No official misused any funds, being opposition leaders, you have all rights to check documents, we will provide them," he added.

Taking to Twitter, Health Minister B Sriramulu said that the decision to raise the salary of 2,000 AYUSH doctors to Rs 45,000 was taken in the meeting.

"The decision to raise the salary of 2000 AYUSH doctors to Rs 45,000 was taken at a meeting chaired by our Hon. Chief Minister Shri @BSYBJP. Assurance has been given that the demand of private AYUSH doctors too will be reviewed and a decision regarding the same will be taken at the earliest. All doctors who were protesting for the same have withdrawn their resignations and reported to work," he tweeted.

Bengaluru, May 16: The Karnataka government is expected to take a call on Monday on holding the Secondary Level School Certificate (SSLC) or class 10 examination, which were postponed due to COVID-19 lockdown.

Minister for Primary and Secondary Education S Suresh Kumar said there was a possibility that the state government may come out with a timetable on Monday. "We are holding a meeting regarding the SSLC examination," he told reporters here.

He also said there would be discussions on how to conduct the exams and precautionary measures to be taken in view of COVID-19.

"We have to make arrangements for masks, sanitisers and thermal scanners. We will set up a thermal scanner for a health check-up. We have to make separate seating arrangements for those having health issues. All these issues will be discussed on Monday," Kumar said.

The SSLC exams were supposed to commence from May 27 but due to the lockdown, it was postponed for an indefinite period.

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.