Will decide on Nov 26 to accept 5-acre land or not: Sunni Waqf Board President

Ballari, Jan 5: Thousands of Muslims, joined by the members of various organisations, on Saturday staged a massive protest in the town condemning the provocative speech by Bellary MLA G Somashekar Reddy.

The police caned the agitators after they tried to lay siege to the house of BJP legislator.

The protesters holding national flag took out a rally from Kaul Bazaar, which passed through the major streets, and culminated at Gadagi Channappa Circle. They raised slogans against the BJP and burnt the effigy of Somashekar Reddy.

The protest sent the traffic haywire Gadagi Channappa Circle and the cascading effect of it was seen across the town. SP C K Babu told the agitators that the MLA has been booked for making provocative speech and pleaded them to hold a protest at Municipal College grounds. But the agitators were in no mood to relent.

Inspector General (Bellary Range) I G Nanjundaswamy has rushed to the town to oversee security. The BJP MLA on Friday made inciting remarks against minorities during his speech at a pro-CAA rally in the town.

FIR against Reddy

The Gandhinagar police in the town on Saturday registered an FIR against MLA Somashekar Reddy, for making a provocative speech, under IPC Sections 153 A (promoting enmity between two religions), 295A (insulting religious beliefs) and 505B.

During his speech at a pro-CAA rally on Friday, Reddy had said, "Hindus are 80% of the population while minorities are 17%. What will happen to you if we hit back? Hence, you should be very careful about your moves and steps."

The legislator came down heavily on those staging protests against CAA in Ballari. "We won't keep quiet if another protest is staged against the CAA. Each Hindu is like Shivaji. Nobody will be alive if all Hindus come out to streets holding swords," he had said.

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.