<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The e-commerce website Paytm on Monday decided to revise their limit from Rs 25,000 to Rs 50,000 for small retailers and shopkeepers within hours of queries by DNA regarding their grievances that the cap of Rs 25,000 was becoming a hurdle for them to use the e wallet.”We have got to know about the problems being faced by these self-declared merchants following which we have announced a new category of self-declared merchants who can accept payments up to Rs 50,000 directly in their bank accounts,” Nitin Misra, Senior Vice President, Paytm, told DNA.Following a guidieline of the Reserve Bank of India, Paytm put a limit of Rs 25,000 for businessmen to transfer to their bank accounts every month. On Monday evening Paytm decided to make the change.Adding that the move is in line with the RBI circular on special measures to incentivise electronic payments, Misra said, “We are on a mission to bring the benefits of digital payments to every merchant in the country. With this new enhancement, the aim is to offer our merchants greater flexibility in handling their money while presenting them with a quick and affordable merchant payment system.”Earlier on Monday, DNA contacted Paytm officials with various grievances faced by small retailers. “I had crossed my Paytm limit of Rs 25,000 on December 8 only which I had transferred in my bank account. I even accepted payments using the online payment mode until December 15th but I can’t accept it anymore. I already have Rs 15,000 in my account which is useless for me. Neither I can transfer them in my account nor I can use them to make my own payments to the dealers as most of them ask for cash or cheques,” said Hemant Khanna, a chemist in east Delhi’s Pandav Nagar area.”Immediately after government’s demonetisation move, we made three Paytm accounts to make things easier for us as well as our customers. But within 10-15 days our paytm wallets were full and we were not able to transfer money in our accounts. We were left with no choice other than stop accepting payments through Paytm,” Manu Sigh, a retailer in south Delhi’s Lajpat Nagar area told DNA.Some of the retailers have even complained about delayed and poor services by Paytm. “Paytm took three days to transfer Rs 10,000 from my paytm wallet to my account. I made several attempts to register a complaint regarding this but nobody received the calls on its helpline numbers,” said Tirup Singh, a general store owner in Mayur Vihar.How will this new Paytm category for self-declared merchants work?To self-declare as merchants, one needs to tap on ‘Accept Payment’ in the updated Paytm app, select ‘Bank Account’, enter bank details and confirm. Next is a self-declaration where the merchant confirms that he/she is the owner of a business and want to accept payments directly in his/her bank account. Post confirmation, the merchant’s bank account would be linked to his/her Paytm account and can start accepting payments directly in his/her bank account. A self-declared merchant can accept payments up to Rs 50,000 in a month. Wallet balance of a self-declared merchant should not exceed Rs 20,000 post which, the amount is settled directly to the merchant’s bank account.
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Real estate barons Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal on Monday assured the Supreme Court that they would not leave India till it commences hearing on the plea seeking review of the 2015 verdict in the Uphaar fire tragedy case asking them to serve a two-year jail term if they fail to pay Rs 30 crore each as fine.A bench comprising Justices JS Khehar and NV Ramana considered the submission of Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) that there was a media report about the possibility of Ansals leaving the country in the absence of a restraint order from the apex court. Initially, the court said it would list the interim plea of AVUT for hearing tomorrow as a three-judge bench was not available today.However, the bench later asked the counsel representing Ansals to give an undertaking “on instructions from his clients” that they would not leave India till commencement of hearing on review pleas filed by AVUT and the CBI in the case.Senior advocate K T S Tulsi, appearing for AVUT, mentioned the plea for urgent hearing, saying “restrain respondents accused Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal from travelling abroad without seeking necessary permission of this court during the pendency of present review petition.” AVUT, through its President Neelam Krishnamoorthy, who had lost her two teenaged children in the blaze, cited a media report that convicts were “on the verge of fleeing the country”. “Grave prejudice and irreparable loss would be caused to the Applicant/Review Petitioner (AVUT) if the respondents accused, Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal travel abroad, without seeking necessary permission of this court,” the plea said.59 people had died of asphyxia when a fire broke out during the screening of Bollywood movie ‘Border’ in Uphaar theatre in Green Park area of South Delhi on June 13, 1997. Over 100 were also injured in the subsequent stampede. Earlier, AVUT had mentioned the review plea for urgent hearing before a bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur who said a new bench would be constituted to hear the review petitions filed by the CBI and Association.Prior to that, a bench headed by Justice A R Dave, now retired, had decided to hear in open court the petitions filed by CBI and the AVUT seeking review of the 2015 verdict. Following the judgement, Sushil and Gopal had deposited Rs 30 crore each to avoid the jail term. In its review plea, AVUT had said the apex court judgement “bestow an unwarranted leniency on convicts whose conviction in the most heinous of offences has been upheld by all courts including this court and sentences imposed on them have been substituted with fine without assigning any reason.” “The sentences of the convicts have been reduced to the period undergone without taking into account the gravity of their offence,” it had said.The CBI, in its review plea, had said the apex court did not give it time to put its views forth which resulted in “miscarriage of justice”. The agency has said, “Due to the paucity of time on the day on which this case was heard, the prosecution could not adequately put across the reasons why this court should not substitute jail sentence with a monetary fine. “This petition also seeks to raise issue of an apparent error of law in the judgement and order of this court which has occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice,” it said.CBI had also claimed that “callousness” of Ansal brothers led to 59 people being trapped and suffocated to death in the theatre. The apex court had, on August 19, 2015 sent Ansal brothers to two years rigorous jail term if they failed to pay Rs 30 crore each within three months.In a judgement on September 23, 2015, the bench had said the “magnitude” of the case “calls for a higher sentence” but the court has to limit itself to the choice available under the law. Earlier, a two-judge bench of justices T S Thakur and Gyan Sudha Misra (since retired) had in a March 5, 2014 order differed on the quantum of sentence for Ansal brothers.While Justice Thakur had retained the one-year jail term awarded by Delhi High Court in 2008, Justice Misra had pronounced the maximum punishment of two years with a rider that it can be reduced to the period already undergone behind bars on joint payment of Rs 100 crore as fine by them.The matter was later referred to a three-judge bench headed by Justice Dave (since retired) which enhanced the sentence to the maximum period of two years under section 304-A (causing death by negligence) of IPC if they failed to pay the fine amount. While Sushil has spent over five months in prison, Gopal was in jail for over four months soon after the accident. The three-judge bench had also said that on the principle of parity, the case of Gopal will stand on the same footing as that of Sushil.
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>A truckload of criticism appears to have forced the Supreme Court to realise its error and eat its hat. On Friday, the court ruled that despite its interim order dictating so, it won’t make the singing of the national anthem compulsory before every movie screening, and a fresh plea would have to be filed to adjudicate upon the same. This does not exonerate the SC, because its direction to file a fresh plea is based only on technical grounds. There is no judicial reasoning whatsoever, as it was in the interim order. There is a difference between changing stances due to adverse public opinion, and laying down law in the first place (because according to Article 141 of the constitution, Supreme Court rulings form an integral part of the law of the land).”History repeats itself, first as a tragedy then as a farce”, Marx had said. Justice Dipak Misra, now a judge of the Supreme Court, by his latest ruling of making the singing of the national anthem mandatory before every movie screening, seems to have proved how prophetically true Marx’s words were. Fifteen years ago, when he was adorning the Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Justice Misra had ruled that not standing up while the national anthem is being sung, or showing any form of disrespect to it, were acts of ‘deviance’ and ‘anti-nationalism’. Now, by his latest interim order to all state governments, the Centre, and movie theatres, Justice Misra has only cemented what many jurists and lawyers had said at that time- that he wouldn’t ever hesitate to enforce some sort of “acid test for nationalism”. Of late, India and Japan have been sharing close ties, with the former pulling out all stops to woo the latter, and emulate its policies. Now it appears as if India’s Supreme Court has gone out on a limb to strengthen this fledgling bond. This is because on 30 November, a Division Bench of the top court decided to take a leaf out of its Japanese counterpart’s book and make the singing of the national anthem mandatory. As many critics of the ruling have aptly stated and observed, the court’s ruling flies in the face of both the letter and spirit of the constitution, and in fact, violates the precedent it had itself set many years ago.The verdict of legal scholars and astute political analysts is clear- it would require a “willing suspension of disbelief” to swallow the apex court’s bulldozing of precedent and enforcing “patriotism”.In 2012, by a 4-1 ruling, Japan’s Supreme Court dismissed the petition of 375 teachers and some students against the then Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara’s 2003 diktat that everyone must stand and sing when the Kimigayo, the Japanese national anthem, is being played in public.By laying down seven binding guidelines regarding the singing of the national anthem before every movie is screened in a theatre or auditorium, India’s Supreme Court, it would not be unfair to say, has surpassed even Japan’s top court in cracking the whip.The court, acting on the writ petition filed by a now-78 retired engineer Shyam Narayan Chouksey 15 years ago, appears to have been obeying the government’s November order from last year that the National Anthem must be sung at all school assemblies, and everyone present must stand in rapt attention during those 52 seconds till which the anthem lasts. It is a different matter that the government withdrew its directive after there was a furore, and has not enforced it since.There are glaring faultlines- both legal and moral, in the Supreme Court’s ruling.First and foremost, the court (it’s important to remember that a judge doesn’t act as an individual, but as a part, and representative of, an institution- in this case, the judiciary- as a whole) relies upon the legally-unenforceable Article 51A of the Constitution to issue a legal imprimatur. 51A, enacted when the Emergency was in force, contains a list of Fundamental Duties, one of which is to ‘respect national values’. But the constitution itself prohibits any court from giving any binding directive based on the provisions of 51A.Second, the court’s ruling is eerily reminiscent of the US Supreme Court’s 1940 judgement in Minersvillle School District v Gobitis, where it was held that students belonging to the Jehovah’s Witness sect of Christianity were to be penalised for not singing the national anthem or taking the pledge of allegiance. Justice Felix Frankfurter, writing for the bench, ruled that, “We are dealing with an interest inferior to none in the hierarchy of legal values. National unity is the basis of national security.”. That ruling was handed down at a time when Nazi Legions were marauding towards Paris, and the world was caught in the throes of war. Is our Supreme Court imagining that India is at war? It is only stoking flames of the acrimonious rage of “anti-nationalism” which threatens to engulf anyone who dares to voice dissent against majoritarianism and everything it brings in its wake. Third, in 1986, the Supreme Court, in the Bijoe Emmanuel (Jehovah’s Witness) case, ruled that the Minersville judgement would not be applicable in India. The court ruled that students belonging to the sect cannot be penalised for not singing the national anthem. The Court’s sudden backtracking shows that sometimes an upsurge of public criticism and backlash does manage to shake up some judicial pillars. One wishes that the court follows the same course instead of threatening journalists and dissenters with criminal contempt.
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>A plea was filed in Supreme Court on Friday seeking direction for playing national anthem before the Supreme Court, High Court and the lower courts proceedings. The apex court, however, refused to entertain the plea seeking the playing of national anthem in courts after AG Mukul Rohatgi submitted that the petitioner should have filed a proper application.The Supreme Court also said its earlier order on national anthem should not be overstretched. It had ordered cinema halls across the country on Wednesday to play the National Anthem before a movie, and said that the audience must stand up while it is being played.The Apex Court said that “love and respect for the motherland is reflected when one shows respect to the National Anthem as well as to the National Flag. A time has come when citizens must realise that they live in a nation and are duty-bound to respect the National Anthem, which is a symbol of constitutional patriotism and inherent national quality,” a Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy said.The SC Bench also said that “prior to the National Anthem being played or sung in cinema halls, the entry and exit doors shall remain closed, so that no one can create any disturbance, which will amount to disrespect to the National Anthem.””The Apex Court said that there shall not be any “dramatisation of the National Anthem” and it should not be included as a part of any variety show. The court barred the printing of the anthem or a part of it on any object and displaying it in such a manner at places which may be “disgraceful to its status”. The court also barred playing or displaying an “abridged version” of the National Anthem and directed that its order be given effect in 10 days.
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Welcoming the Supreme Court’s order on national anthem, BJP on Wednesday said it will strengthen the spirit of nationalism and the idea of ‘Ek Bharat, Shrestha Bharat’.The apex court today directed that cinema halls across the country must play the national anthem before the screening of a film and people should stand up as a mark of respect. “BJP welcomes this order and commend the court for this. It will strengthen the spirit of nationalism. National anthem and tri-colour unite us as a nation and this unity will be further strengthened,” party’s National Secretary Shrikant Sharma said. A strong national spirit will help India become a ‘vishwa guru’ (world leader), he said.BJP spokesperson Nalin Kohli said the order is a reminder to people that they should have affection and duty towards national institutions and symbols. “Its a welcome order. Of late, there has been certain controversies. People are not standing up in cinema halls when national anthem is being played. “The SC has adjudicated and passed an order in terms of it. That has to be welcomed. It is a reminder to people that we have to have affection and duty towards our national institutions and symbols,” Kohli said.The Supreme Court also directed that the national flag should be shown on screen when the anthem is played. “People must feel this is my country and this is my motherland,” a bench of justices Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy said while stressing that it is the duty of every citizen of the country to show respect to the national anthem and the flag.Directing that its order be shown in electronic and print media and be followed in letter and spirit, the court said, “Time has come when people should feel they live in a nation.”
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court t directed that cinema halls across the country must play the national anthem before the screening of a film and people should stand up as a mark of respect. The court also directed that the national flag should be shown on screen when the anthem is played. “People must feel this is my country and this is my motherland,” a bench of justices Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy said while stressing that it is the duty of every citizen of the country to show respect to the national anthem and the flag. “At the root of protocol for national anthem, is respect for national identity, integrity and constitutional patriotism,” the bench said while directing the Centre that the order should be given effect in a week’s time and be circulated to all States and Union Territories through chief secretarie Twitter had a field day mocking the judgment which many strongly disagreed with.Remember the time you illegally downloaded a movie?Caramel popcorns are heavenly though. No comments. Jab dhai kilo ka hat girega Vicco Turmeric ads- Good ol’ DD days May well become reality UN anthem? Yeah…quarter time zaroori haiRemember the outrage about Hindi? Demonetization post effect? Justice Lodha may get a chance to head a committee again With agency inputs
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Real estate barons Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal moved Supreme Court on Monday seeking de-sealing of the Uphaar cinema hall where 59 cine-goers had lost their lives in 1997 in a blaze when a Bollywood movie was being screened. A bench comprising Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justices D Y Chandrachud and L Nageswara Rao said it will discuss the matter with Justice A R Dave, who had heard the petition in the case.Senior advocate Salman Khurshid, appearing for Ansals, mentioned the matter for urgent hearing and said the fresh plea of Ansals could be heard together with other petitions including those filed by CBI and the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) in the case. Justice Dave, who headed the three-judge bench which had heard the matters in the Uphaar case, is set to demit office on November 18. Earlier this year, a three-judge bench comprising justices Dave, Kurian Joseph and A K Goel had decided to hear in an open court the petitions filed by CBI and the AVUT seeking review of its 2015 verdict by which Sushil and Gopal Ansal were required to serve two-year jail term if they failed to pay Rs 30 crore each. The Ansals have deposited the amount.Fifty-nine people had died of asphyxia when a fire broke out during the screening of Bollywood movie ‘Border’ in Uphaar theatre in Green Park area of South Delhi on June 13, 1997.Over 100 were also injured in the subsequent stampede. The review plea filed by AVUT had said the apex court judgements “bestow an unwarranted leniency on convicts whose conviction in the most heinous of offences has been upheld by all courts including this court and sentences imposed on them have been substituted with fine without assigning any reason or basis.””The sentences of the convicts have been reduced to the period undergone without taking into account the gravity of their offence,” it had said. The CBI, in its review plea, had said the apex court did not give it time to put its views forth which has resulted in “miscarriage of justice”.”Due to the paucity of time on the day on which this case was heard, the prosecution could not adequately put across the reasons why this court should not substitute a monetary fine in place of a jail sentence. “This petition also seeks to raise issue of an apparent error of law in the judgement and order of this court which has occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice,” the agency had said in its plea. The agency had also said that the “callousness” of the Ansal brothers led to 59 people being trapped and suffocated to death in the theatre. The apex court had, on August 19, 2015 sent Ansal brothers to two-year rigorous jail term if they failed to pay Rs 30 crore each within three months.In a judgement on September 23, 2015, the bench had said the “magnitude” of the case “calls for a higher sentence” but the court has to limit itself to the choice available under the law. A two-judge bench of justices T S Thakur and Gyan Sudha Misra (since retired) had in a March 5, 2014 order differed on the quantum of sentence for Ansal brothers — Sushil, 76, and Gopal, 67.While Justice Thakur had retained the one-year jail term awarded by Delhi High Court in 2008, Justice Misra had awarded the maximum punishment of two years with a rider that it can be reduced to the period already undergone behind bars on payment of Rs 100 crore as fine collectively by them. After this, the matter was referred to the bench of Justices A R Dave, Kurian Joseph and Adarsh Kumar Goel, which enhanced the sentence to the maximum period of two years under Section 304-A (causing death by negligence) of IPC if they failed to pay the fine amount.While Sushil has spent over five months in prison, Gopal was in jail for over four months soon after the accident. The three-judge bench had also said that on the principle of parity, the case of Gopal will stand on the same footing as that of Sushil
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>While the Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (AYUSH) is launching “Mission Madhumeha through Ayurveda” on Friday, modern medicine doctors continue to be at loggerheads over efficacy of the alternative system of medicine for treatment of diabetes.A heated debate over the issue has been continuing in recent editions of ‘The Lancet’ via posts giving alternative therapies a thumbs down.Unabated doubts raised by diabetes experts over Ayurvedic drugs have also moved the AYUSH ministry to get concrete proof to their claims. “In a bid to counter this allegation that Ayurvedic are inefficacious, we have looped in scientific institutes such as Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay and All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). They are researching to establish efficacy of Ayurvedic drugs not only for diabetes but for other diseases also,” Anil Kumar Ganeriwala, Joint Secretary, AYUSH Ministry told DNA.Since March, there has been a brisk exchange of opinions over the issue in “The Lancet” with a latest correspondence on Wednesday. The first post titled ‘Maximum Hype, Minimum Science’ was published in the Medical Journal in March 2016, by a noted endocrinologist Dr Anoop Misra, who claimed there is insufficient scientific evidence to recommend Ayurvedic drugs in routine clinical practice.In reply to the post, Ayurvedic experts Rajiv Vasudevan and Zankhana Buch, stated, “Regarding the scarcity of studies of Ayurvedic treatments mentioned by Misra and colleagues, it is important to keep in mind that classic Ayurvedic medicines are usually polyherbal formulations. The combined effect of the phytochemical constituents of various herbs is responsible for therapeutic efficacy, rather than the actions of a single active ingredient.“Standard double-blind randomised controlled trials are not frequently used for Ayurvedic treatments because the multi-faceted approach to diabetes management is not amenable totrials,” they stated.
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The apex court has agreed to examine a plea, whether playing of the National Anthem should be made mandatory at theatres, ahead of screening of any movie. A PIL was filed by one Shyam Narayan Chouksey, also sought court’s direction to the government to frame regulations to ensure respect and dignity to the National Anthem . The lawyer of the petitioner asked the bench headed by Justce Dipak Misra to issue directions that no abridged version of the National Anthem shall be sung at any point of time.He further said, the national anthem should not be used for commercial purposes or for entertainment purposes. Also the petitioner suggested that it should not be sung before those, who don’t understand. The petitioner also pleaded that the National Anthem should be played in the cinema theatres across the country before the feature film. The court asked the government to reply on the practicability.Amidst the raging debate on nationalism, the BJP-led central government has recently released a fresh set of guidelines to maintain sanctity of the national anthem and national emblem. The Ministry of Home Affairs has asked the state governments and other law enforcement agencies to initiate action against those, found disrespecting the National Anthem and the state emblem.
Cauvery issue: SC directs Karnataka to continue giving 2,000 cusecs water to Tamil Nadu
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Karnataka to continue supplying 2,000 cusecs of Cauvery river water to Tamil Nadu everyday till further orders.
While continuing with its 4 October order, the bench of Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Amitava Roy and Justice AM Khanwilkar said it would be incumbent upon the governments of both states to maintain peace and harmony.
People should not become law unto themselves, the bench said.
With a genetic predisposition brought to the fore by changing lifestyles, deaths due to diabetes increased 50 percent in India between 2005 and 2015, and is now the seventh most common cause of death in the country, up from the 11th rank in 2005, according to data published by the Global Burden of Disease (GDB).
Ischemic heart disease continues to be the highest cause of death, followed by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cerebrovascular disease, lower respiratory infection and tuberculosis.
In 2015, 346,000 people died of diabetes, which caused 3.3 percent of all deaths that year, with an annual increase of 2.7 percent from 1990, according to the GDB study.
Nearly 26 people die of diabetes per 100,000 population; diabetes is also one of the top causes of disability and accounts for 2.4 percent of the disability adjusted life years lost (sum of years lost due to disability or premature death due to the disease).
Source: Global Burden of Disease, Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME)
There are 69.1 million people with diabetes in India, the second highest number in the world after China, which has 109 million people with diabetes. Of these, 36 million cases remain undiagnosed, according to this 2015 Diabetes Atlas released by the International Diabetes Federation (IDF). Nearly 9 percent in the age group of 20-79 have diabetes.
The figures are alarming since diabetes is a chronic disease that not just affects the pancreas’ ability to produce insulin but affects the entire body. Complications caused due to diabetes include heart disease, stroke, kidney failure, vision loss and neuropathy or nerve damage leading to leg amputation.
Unlike other countries, where a majority of people with diabetes are over 60 years old, the prevalence in India is among the 40-59 years age group, affecting productivity of the population.
“Diabetes strikes Indians a decade earlier than the world,” Anoop Misra, chairman, Fortis Centre of Excellence for Diabetes, Metabolic Diseases and Endocrinology, New Delhi, told IndiaSpend. “This causes reduced productivity, increased absenteeism in working population and gives more time for complications to arise.”
Why the rise in the diabetes? Blame genes and changing lifestyles
Indians are especially predisposed to diabetes due to social and genetic reasons. Peculiar genetic composition of Indians known as ‘Asian Indian Phenotype’ makes them appear thin but with fat depositions around their internal organs.
It makes them prone to greater abdominal fat, insulin resistance, higher levels of bad fat and increased chances of suffering from diabetes and coronary artery disease.
Cost of diabetes: Urban poor spend 34 percent of income on treatment
It is estimated that diabetes patients in urban areas spend Rs 10,000 and patients in rural areas spend Rs 6,260 every year on treatment, according to a 2013 study published by The Association of Physicians of India.
Since most of the healthcare cost is borne out of pocket in India, those in lower economic groups have to bear the greatest burden. Urban poor spend as much as 34 percent while rural poor spend 27 percent of their income on diabetes treatment, the study found.
India is predicted to have 123 million diabetes cases aged between 20 and 79 by 2040, according to estimates by IDF. “We need a national campaign on the level of pulse polio to tackle diabetes, it is soon going to be a problem bigger than TB, HIV and malaria together,” Misra said.
Even though diabetes features in the National Health Mission’s National Programme for Prevention and Control of Cancer, Diabetes, Cardiovascular Diseases and Stroke for district-level intervention to prevent non-communicable diseases, it needs to do more to screen, create awareness and monitor and treat the disease to stem the tide.
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The premier All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi will admit 100 students from the country for its undergraduate programme from next academic session, increasing the number of seats from the existing 72, its director announced on Monday. Besides, seven foreign nationals would also be admitted for the institute’s MBBS course from 2017.”In sixty years of its journey, AIIMS has grown in strength, thanks to the sheer dedication of our predecessors and former directors who shaped this institution. It has grown tremendously with time, both academically and in service delivery. We have decided to increase our UG intake, and, I am happy to announce that from next year onwards, we will be admitting 100 students for this course,” AIIMS Director Dr M C Misra said. He was addressing a gathering on the occasion of the Foundation Day of AIIMS currently celebrating its diamond jubilee.The medical college currently admits 77 students — 72 Indian nationals and five foreigners — for UG courses. The percentage of reserved seats under various categories would remain the same, he said.AIIMS Registrar Dr Sanjeev Lalwani said relative share of seats meant for Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe, OBC and physically handicapped reserved categories would remain the same.AIIMS was established in 1956. It was the vision of Rajkumari Amrita Kaur, the first Health Minister of India, that led to the establishment of a medical institute of international repute in India. Besides, the main Delhi campus, AIIMS also has six regional centres in Bhopal, Patna, Bhubaneswar, Jodhpur, Raipur and Rishikesh.”The regional centres currently admit 100 students each but no foreign nationals. So, the UG intake of AIIMS Delhi will be increased,” Lalwani said.”Besides, we have already increased by almost 90 per cent the intake for DM (Doctorate in Medicine) and MCh (Master of Surgery) programmes. We have been expanding facilities at our Masjid Moth campus here too and at Trauma Centre we have added 1,800 beds. In next 10 years, we target 6,000 beds for AIIMS,” Misra said.
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Chikungunya cases are still on the rise in the national capital as at least 2,000 blood test samples have tested positive for chikungunya at AIIMS only, where doctors are also studying the viral strain that is in circulation. The national capital is and several other parts of north India are witnessing an outbreak of chikungunya after nearly 10 years and hospitals have reported at least 15 deaths including one at AIIMS, due to chikungunya complications.AIIMS however asserted on Friday that chikungunya “cannot cause death” and attributed “co-morbidity” as the factor which causes fatality in rare cases. “1 out of 1,000 people, ie, 0.1% run the risk of dying due to chikungunya complications, and that too if the patient has co-morbid conditions. Chikungunya is otherwise non-fatal,” Head of the Department of Medicine, Dr SK Sharma said.AIIMS Director Dr MC Misra, and several other doctors from various departments addressed a press conference on Friday before a public lecture on dengue and chikungunya fever at it campus in Delhi. “If one analyses the deaths, attributed to chikungunya, being reported in Delhi, you would realise that most of them had co-morbid conditions, like hypertension or diabetes or kidney or other renal problems. Chikungunya as such cannot cause death,” Misra said.According to a municipal report, at least 2,625 cases of chikungunya have been reported in the national capital till September 17. Over 1,300 dengue cases and 19 deaths due to it have been also reported.Dr Lalit Dar of Department of Microbiology at AIIMS, says, the rising cases of chikungunya after the 2006 outbreak could be due to “Delhi having a lot of migrant population and generation born after 2006.” “Since they were not exposed to the viral strain in 2006 and hence not grown immune, so they are getting affected by it,” he said. According to Dar, AIIMS laboratories have “tested 3,500 cases of chikungunya samples out of which 2,000 have tested positive, nearly 58%. And, for dengue, out of 8,500 samples only 474 have tested positive.””We are also studying the virus type for the last two-and-a-half months in our labs,” he said. On dengue Sharma said, “People should not chase platelet count for severity of the disease. And, in some cases, platelet transfusion can cause complications and even hepatitits B or C. The warning signs should be bleeding and brain complications, only then they should be taken up for transfusion.”AIIMS doctors also said that the immunity developed after chikungunya fever is “solid”. “A person affected by chikungunya will not contract the disease again as he or she grows immune to the virus. The chikungunya virus anyway has just one serotype and so it cannot affect again, unlike dengue which has four viral strains, so a person can get dengue fever four times in his or her life,” Dar said.This year, some of the patients are also showing mixed infection, i.e. testing positive for both dengue and chikungunya, and experts say, in these cases, dengue should be first ruled out, at the earliest.”Until dengue is not ruled out, only paracetamol should be given and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) like diclofenac should not be administered. Even after dengue has been ruled out, NSAIDs should not be given until the fever has subsided,” Dar added.Sharma said, dengue is a preventable and manageable disease, and people should not panic. “Family members of dengue patients should watch out for alarm signs, like nose bleeding, vaginal bleeding, skin inflammation or if the patient shows altered behaviour, and then they should be immediately admitted,” he said.Seeking to combat the mosquito menace, the Arvind Kejriwal government has started a massive fogging drive, which has also raised the issue of its effects on health of people. “As per most of the literature, fogging does not have much effect on checking breeding of mosquitoes. Awareness among people proves more effective,” said Dr Anil Goswami, Nodal Officer for Disease Prevention Outbreak and Response Cell at AIIMS.Dr Sanjeev Sinha of the Department of Medicine said, “fumes let out during fogging can cause short-term breathing problems in health persons, but it affects largely those persons who have prior bronchial problems.”
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court will on Friday hear an appeal filed by December 16 gangrape convicts — Akshay, Vinay Sharma, Pawan and Mukesh. They had challenged their death sentence awarded by the Delhi High Court in the apex court. The top court had on April 4 begun final hearing of the convicts’ appeal almost two years after staying their execution.Two of the four death-row convicts had written to Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justice Deepak Misra, stating that they do not approve of the defence counsel appointed by the court to argue their case before the top court as they had given statements against them to the media in the past. The trial court had in September 2013 awarded death sentences to the convicts. Six months later, the Delhi High Court upheld their conviction and sentence. All the convicts moved the apex court in 2014, which stayed their execution.Six people, including a juvenile, had assaulted the woman in a moving bus in South Delhi. Later, the accused threw out the victim and her male friend at an isolated spot. She died in a Singapore hospital on December 29, 2012, triggering nation-wide protests that resulted in giving more teeth to laws related to rape and other formes of sexual harassment.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has refused to take a lenient view towards a man sent to jail for five years for cruelty towards his pregnant wife forcing her to commit suicide, saying her story resembled the tale of young women who ended their life due to “untold miseries” faced in their matrimonial homes.
“The story of the deceased young lady, aged about 25 years who was forced to commit suicide by the unfortunate
situation and circumstances surrounding her life, resembles the tale of so many similar young ladies who end their life due to untold miseries and hardships faced by them within the confines of the four walls of their matrimonial home,” a bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh said.
The court observed this while dismissing the appeal filed by a Karnataka man challenging his conviction and the five year jail term awarded by the high court which had held him guilty for offences under sections 498 A (subjecting a married woman to cruelty) and 306 (abetting suicide) of the IPC.
The apex court said such women enter matrimonial homes with a “hope of leading a long and blissful married life, but this hope, invariably, does not last long, nor their life”.
The petitioner and his parents were acquitted by the trial court in the case, but Karnataka High Court had later
convicted the husband.
The victim was married to the man in 1991 and was living in her matrimonial home. In November 1993, the man had
informed police that his wife had died after consuming poison.
In its verdict, the apex court noted that the high court had rightly rejected the explanation given by the man that his wife had committed suicide as she was not permitted to go to her mother’s place.
“Only for such a trivial matter, a hale and hearty young woman having a ten-month old son and a pregnancy of 20 weeks is not at all expected to take her life.
“The appellant not only gave absolutely no explanation for the injuries on the person of the deceased, rather he
chose to conceal them by keeping mum,” the bench said.
After the National Green Tribunal (NGT) dismissed a plea of The Art of Living (AOL) Foundation seeking to furnish a bank guarantee of the balance compensation amount of the environmental compensation levied on them for damage to the Yamuna floodplains during the World Culture Festival (WCF) held in March, the foundation said they found the verdict unjust and after reviewing the order they would go to the Supreme Court. <!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The NGT also directed AOL to pay the remaining Rs 4.75 crores as environment compensation. “We find the verdict unjust and, if need be, after reviewing the order we will go to the Supreme Court. We have not violated any law or done any wrong,” said AOL. “The Art of Living has never said that we don’t have funds. We were ready and willing to give a bank guarantee which served the purpose, but our application has been wrongly dismissed. We will test the legality and see how we can correct the judgement,” said the foundation in a statement. “We don’t agree with the observations of the Tribunal. The Art of Living has neither polluted air or water or earth. We have left the WCF site in a better condition than what we had got. We have an extensive repertoire for environment work and find these allegations unacceptable,” it further said. No scientific assessment of the site has yet been done, claimed AOL, adding: “On a brief visual inspection, allegations have been made and we have been asked to compensate an amount arrived at arbitrarily. The damage has not even been assessed. We are, therefore, not happy and will consider all options. We would like to point out that what a section of media is enthusiastically calling a fine is not a fine but a compensation deposit, it added.On Monday, the NGT had issued notice to petitioners – environmentalist Manoj Misra, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and other respondents – on a plea filed by The Art of Living Foundation, seeking reconstitution of principal expert committee to examine the alleged impact of the World Culture Festival on the Yamuna floodplains. The foundation filed an application to reconstitute an independent and an unbiased expert committee to examine the allegations. The foundation alleged, “The committee has pre-judged the issue and are under self-imposed pressure to justify that figure, creating a bias for itself.” “The Art of Living objects to the existing committee comprising Brij Gopal, Prof. Gosain, C.R. Babu and headed by Sashi Shekhar, who arrived at an arbitrary figure of Rs. 120 crore based on a very brief ‘visual’ assessment without following a scientific process,” the foundation said in a statement.The court, which heard the preliminary arguments to change the committee, issued notice to Mishra, the other petitioners as well as the respondents. The court will tomorrow consider the request for another independent body to simultaneously assess the site pending the final disposal of the application. On March 9, the NGT had refused to prohibit the World Culture Festival on the bank of Yamuna, but slapped a fine of Rs. 5 crore on the foundation for damaging biodiversity of the ecologically sensitive Yamuna floodplains.On May10, the foundation had issued a clarification over a NGT notice to its founder Ravi Shankar for his alleged remarks against the green panel, saying the allegations against the spiritual leader were ‘completely false’ and based merely on ‘newspaper reports’. The NGT issued a notice to Ravi Shankar for his alleged remarks that the fine imposed by the green panel for organising an event on banks f river Yamuna was politically motivated. “At the NGT proceedings, it was specifically pointed out by The Art of Living lawyers that applications filed by Anand Arya and Misra were based merely on news paper reports and that the tribunal ought not to entertain the same,” the Art of Living statement said. “It was also clarified by The Art of Living that the allegations about Sri Sri Ravi Shankar at the NGT was misconceived since the video of the speech was available with Art Of Living and demonstrate that the allegation was completely false,” it added. The Art of Living further said that it would respond to NGT’s notice and warned the complainant of strict action if allegations are found without credible basis. “Court in fact warned Misra that if he is not able to prove his allegation, he will be penalised,” the statement added. The NGT in a notice to Ravishankar had asked why should not contempt of court proceedings be initiated against him and has directed him to file a reply to it latest by May 25.
Anthony Gonzalves was clever enough to get it right after having only just hatching out of an Easter egg: “You know the whole country of the system is juxtapositioned by the hemoglobin in the atmosphere because you are a sophisticated rhetorician intoxicated by the exuberance of your own verbosity!”
Anyone attempting to read Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India, the imposing, 268 page long tome of text authored by Justice Dipak Misra, settling the question of the constitutionality of criminal defamation in India, will be as perplexed as the party audience in Amar Akbar Anthony’s famously catchy song.
Intoxicated by the exuberance of their own verbosity, our Courts have been guilty of making their decisions virtually impenetrable by the common man for whom they are purportedly written.
Attempts have already been made elsewhere to decipher this judgment. Strangely, this does not appear to be the usual literary style adopted by Justice Misra in his other decisions.
The precedent for such writing seems to stem from the inimitable VR Krishna Iyer. In 1979’s Phul Singh vs State of Punjab, the opening paragraph, narrating the facts of the case, reads thus: “A philanderer of 22, appellant Phul Singh, overpowered by sex stress in excess, hoisted himself into his cousin’s house next door, and in broad day-light, overpowered the temptingly lonely prosecutrix of twenty four, Pushpa, raped her in hurried heat and made an urgent exit having fulfilled his erotic sortie.”
He justified the reduction of the Appellant’s sentence from four years to two with this reasoning: “A hyper-sexed homo sapiens cannot be habilitated by humiliating or harsh treatment, but that is precisely the perversion of unreformed Jail Justice which some criminologists have described as the crime of punishment” (emphasis mine).
You’d be hard pressed to justify this sort of writing in today’s world. And yet, the flattering imitators persist. Subordinate Courts, bound as they are by stare decisis, take their literary cues from such prose. So the opening lines of the Special CBI Court’s judgment in the Arushi Talwar murder trial goes: “The cynosure of judicial determination is the fluctuating fortunes of the dentist couple Dr Rajesh Talwar and Dr Nupur Talwar…”
At the other end of the spectrum, the state of Maharashtra has been attempting to spread the use of Marathi in lower Courts for well over two decades. Attempts are now underway to conquer the last bastion of English, the stubbornly ‘Bombay’ High Court by making the official language Marathi. Obviously, this would present a peculiarly Indian problem where the Supreme Court gravitates towards a kind of written English which even the British probably never dreamed of, but subordinate Courts are driven towards local language.
Caught between this schism is the High Court, which is called upon to consider Appeals drafted in English from decisions rendered in Marathi. Between the inherent ambiguity of overly complicated judgments like Phul Singh and Subramanian Swamy, and the expectation of all Courts to translate and then apply their ratios to the cases tried by them, a recipe for disaster is in the making, to the detriment of ordinary Indian litigants.
Legal language is a subject that’s taught in the first year of LLB. But instead of teaching prospective lawyers (and therefore, judges) how to write lucidly, much emphasis is laid on memorising the English translations of Latin maxims (which, incidentally, are of limited use even in every day practice), the short forms of different law journals and the meanings of an assortment of commonly used ‘legal words’.
The only redeeming features are a section on essay writing, and another on grammar. This is not to suggest that good language skills necessarily translate into good advocacy or good judgments, or that those with poor language skills cannot make great lawyers and judges. The question is one of accessibility to the ordinary litigating public.
As long ago as 1986, Lawyers Collective magazine carried an article on the need for a Plain Language Movement in India, of the kind that is already well established abroad, to simplify language in Courts. Decrying what was already a dire predicament then, it was noted that “The highest court of the land has very often to assume the role of a philologist (linguist) and consider the minute nuances of a word after consulting various dictionaries and authorities, before coming to a possible conclusion. Then again what is true in one context need not apply to another and this does not preclude other interpretations and other delays on account of them. In many cases the judgement too is baffling, even to the legal pundits.”
Perhaps a solution is already close at hand. In journalism, another language-based profession, it is subeditors who are tasked with modulating the often unintelligible stories filed by reporters, and are expected to lend a unifying voice to the publications they work for. If our Courts continue in the vein of Subramanian Swamy, the time may come when recourse may have to be made to a similar solution — even a separate cadre of Court staff entrusted only with the editing of judgments — to enable litigants to hurdle over the Courts’ language barrier.
The author practices in Bombay High Court
Goa Lokayukta office has sought to know from the state government whether its head can use car with ‘red beacon’, in view of a complaint filed in this regard by a social activist.Activist Aires Rodrigues had earlier lodged a complaint with state Chief Secretary claiming the Goa Lokayukta was using a red beacon on his car though he was not entitled to. “I will not offer any comment on the issue. There is some correspondence happening between the secretary Lokayukta and the government,” Goa’s Lokayukta Justice (Retd) PK Misra said.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>He said a notification issued by the central government following a Supreme Court order on red beacon car says that “any dignitary declared as equivalent to Supreme court judge can use red beacon car”. “And under section 6 of Goa Lokayukta Act, Lokayukta is having status of Supreme Court judge,” he said.”Possibly there is a scope for interpreting that Lokayukta can use car with red beacon,” Justice Misra said, adding that he has already stopped using the red beacon, awaiting clarification from the government. Rodrigues had in his complaint said that Lokayukta using red beacon car amounts to “gross contempt of the Supreme Court’s order”.As per the complaint, in accordance with the Supreme Court order, the Goa government by a notification issued on July 3, 2014 notified the list of persons entitled to use the red beacon on their official vehicle. As per that notification, only the Governor, Chief Minister and Ministers, Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court, Leader of Opposition, Advocate General and the Chief Secretary, are allowed to use the red beacon, the complaint had said.
New Delhi: Spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar was, on Tuesday, served two contempt notices for violating the orders of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), with regard to the World Culture Festival he organised on the banks of the Yamuna in March 2016.
The court has accepted the pleas of main petitioner, Manoj Misra, and another environmentalist Anand Arya, to club the contempt cases to a single case that will come up for hearing on 25 May, an NGT official told IANS.
In a related development, the Principal Bench of NGT headed by Justice Swatanter Kumar has pulled up the Principal Committee appointed by it to assess the damage caused to the fragile Yamuna floodplains because of the World Culture Festival (WCF) for not submitting its report even after the deadline for it has expired long go. The WCF was held on 11-13 March and attended by lakhs of people.
“Everything that comes to you has got stuck. Why have you not prepared the report,” Justice Kumar asked the committee during the proceedings of the case.
The NGT had on 9 March constituted a ‘Principal Committee’ comprising officials from the Delhi Pollution Control Committee, National Pollution Control Board, ministry of environment and forest conservation, and the union water resource ministry to assess the damage caused to the Yamuna floodplains.
In a case filed on Tuesday, Anand Arya accused Sri Sri Ravi Shankar of “wilfully disregarding and violating the NGT order passed on 9 March this year by releasing enzymes into the River Yamuna”.
In his application, Arya has referred to a verdict passed by the NGT itself where it had “prohibited any person from throwing pooja material or any other material like food-grain, oil, etc into River Yamuna”.
“It is abundantly clear that the enzymes have been released into the drains going up to Yamuna and the Yamuna itself which was pre-meditated and in utter disregard and violation of the judgment,” Arya said.
The Art of Living foundation claimed that it had prepared “totally organic enzymes with brown sugar, kitchen green waste and water in over a period of three months” to cleanse polluted water, which the AoL used to clean the nearby Barapullah drain.
Arya also accused the foundation of going against its own undertaking to the NGT.
According to the environmentalist, the AoL had “given an undertaking to the Tribunal that it will not release any kind of enzymes into river Yamuna, its tributaries or any water bodies without obtaining due permission of the Central Pollution Control Board and Delhi Pollution Control Committee”.
Manoj Misra, in his application to the NGT Tuesday, said that Sri Sri has flouted the court orders by terming the Rs.5 crore environment penalty imposed by the Green Tribunal on him as “politically motivated”.
“The Applicant came across various news articles in the last few days wherein the Chairman of Art of Living has given a statement that the National Green Tribunal’s decision to fine the Foundation Rs.5 crore for allegedly causing environmental damage was politically motivated,” Misra said in his application filed through his counsel Sanjay Parikh.
The Art of Living has termed both the applications as “baseless”.
“At the NGT proceedings, it was specifically pointed out by the Art of Living that applications filed by Anand Arya and Misra were based merely on newspaper reports and that the tribunal ought not to entertain the same,” the foundation said in a written statement shared with the IANS.
Gautam Vig, Director of the foundation, told IANS that the allegations about Sri Sri Ravi Shankar giving statements against the NGT were “totally misconceived and false”.
He said the video of the Sri Sri’s speech “was available with Art Of Living which can demonstrate that the allegation was completely false”.
Vig said, “the NGT has said that if Mishra’s allegations are found without credible basis, strict action would be taken in accordance with law”.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the CBI on a PIL seeking a probe against the people named in the Panama papers.
An apex court bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Shiva Kirti Singh issued notice on the plea by advocate ML Sharma, who also sought an investigation against the SEBI head for what he said was the market regulator’s failure to act on the issue.
A notice returnable in four weeks has also been issued to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the Reserve Bank of India and the union finance ministry.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday sought response from the Centre on a plea seeking CBI inquiry against Indian offshore bank account holders named in the Panama papers.
A bench comprising justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh issued notices to Centre and the CBI on the petition filed by advocate ML Sharma.
A Multi Agency Group (MAG) of various investigative agencies has been formed by the government to go into the disclosures made in the list which includes about 500 Indian entities.
The Panama Papers leaks contain an unprecedented amount of information, including more than 11 million documents covering 2,10,000 companies in 21 offshore jurisdictions. Each transaction spans different jurisdictions and may involve multiple entities and individuals.
Uttarakhand High Court will today hear nine rebel Congress MLAs’ petition against their disqualification.Earlier the hearing was scheduled to be held on coming Monday. But the rebel MLAs had filed special representation, requesting the court to conduct an early hearing. Meanwhile, the Centre on Friday agreed to Supreme Court’s suggestion for a floor test in the Assembly under the apex court’s supervision.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The President’s rule will temporarily be lifted on Tuesday and ex- Chief Minister Harish Rawat will seek the confidence vote in the house. An apex court bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra had on April 27 directed the continuation of President’s rule in Uttarakhand. The Centre had imposed President’s rule in the state on March 27.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday deferred till Wednesday the hearing on the Centre’s appeal against Uttarakhand High Court verdict on imposition of President’s rule in the state and asked the Centre to think about floor test under its supervision.A bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh, which had fixed the hearing on the plea at 2 PM today, took up the matter at 10.30 AM to apprise the parties concerned that it may not take up the case today as Justice Singh would be a part of another bench hearing matters related to medical entrance exams at 2 PM.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>During the brief hearing, the bench repeated its suggestion that the Centre should consider holding a floor test in the Assembly under its supervision to ascertain the actual situation.
ALSO READ Uttarakhand crisis: We have faith in the judiciary – Harish Rawat on SC ruling It asked Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi to take instruction on the issue and apprise it about the same on Wednesday.An apex court bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra, had on April 27, directed to continue the President’s rule for the while.
ALSO READ Uttarakhand crisis: Every act of public functionary must be bona fide, not mala fide, says High CourtThe two-judge division bench, comprising of Justice Dipak Mishra and Justice Shiva Kirti Singh, had also asked several questions to the Centre asking it to justify imposition of President’s rule in the state.Hearing the Centre’s plea against the Uttarakhand High Court order, the apex court sought to know whether the Governor could have sent a message in the present manner under Article175 (2) to conduct a floor test and if delay in the floor test can be a ground for the proclamation of President’s rule in the state.The apex court has also sought to know whether disqualification of MLAs by the Uttarakhand Speaker is a relevant issue for the purpose of imposing President’s rule under Article 356 and proceedings in the Uttarakhand assembly can be taken note of by the President for imposing his rule.The apex court further asked the Centre as to what the stage is of the Appropriation Bill and when President’s rule comes into the picture with regards to the Appropriation Bill.The Centre had introduced President’s rule on March 27.(With agency inputs)
The Supreme Court will on Tuesday hear Centre’s petition challenging the Uttarakhand High Court order quashing imposition of President’s rule in Uttarakhand. An apex court bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra, had on April 27, directed to continue the President’s rule for the while.Posting the matter for further hearing on Tuesday, it had extended the stay on the high court’s order quashing the central rule in Uttarakhand. The two-judge division bench, comprising of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Shiva Kirti Singh, had also asked several questions to the Centre asking it to justify imposition of President’s rule in the state.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Hearing the Centre’s plea against the Uttarakhand High Court order, the apex court sought to know whether the Governor could have sent a message in the present manner under Article175 (2) to conduct a floor test and if delay in the floor test can be a ground for the proclamation of President’s rule in the state.
ALSO READ Uttarakhand crisis: Harish Rawat govt is still in minority, claims BJPThe apex court also sought to know whether disqualification of MLAs by the Uttarakhand Speaker is a relevant issue for the purpose of imposing President’s rule under Article 356 and proceedings in the Uttarakhand assembly can be taken note of by the President for imposing his rule.The apex court further asked the Centre as to what the stage is of the Appropriation Bill and when President’s rule comes into the picture with regards to the Appropriation Bill. The Centre had introduced President’s rule on March 27.
The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday asked the Maharashtra government not to overstep its power by flouting court orders to grant licences to dance bar owners on one pretext or the other. “Dance is better than begging,” a bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra said.”Government regulatory measures can’t be prohibitory,” it said, pointing out to the “unreasonable” conditions imposed by the authorities to regulate obscenity, the bench said. It criticised the state government for framing rules that prohibit dance bars within 1km of educational institutions.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Pulling up the Devendra Fadnavis government for holding the applications of 154 bar owners, the apex court said: “Dance is a profession. If it is obscene, then it loses its legal sanctity.”Recently, the Maharashtra government had filed a 40-page affidavit saying that these applications failed to comply with 26 conditions. Some applicants did not even allow officials to inspect the bars to ascertain whether they have complied with the court order, it said.The Maharashtra Assembly had unanimously passed the Dance Bar Regulation Bill on April 12.The new Bill fixes accountability on the owner in case of violation of rules, exploitation of women employees or in cases of obscenity. Owners or operators face up to five years in jail and fine of up to Rs 25,000 for violation. Separate rules are being formulated on this, based on the provisions of the Bill.According to the new conditions, dance bars must be at least 1 km from educational and religious institutions, and they should operate between 6pm and 11.30pm. Liquor cannot be served in performance areas. The Bill also bans running bars in residential buildings and permits them in semi-residential ones, only if three-fourths residents consent.The Bill also has a provision to repeal amendments to Section 33 (A) of the Maharashtra Police Act that were struck down earlier by the SC.
The Centre on Friday moved Supreme Court challenging the Uttarakhand High Court’s order quashing the imposition of President’s rule in the state.Attorney General (AG) Mukul Rohatgi mentioned the appeal before a bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh, which asked him to approach the Registry for listing it for hearing today itself.The bench said that the Registry will seek permission from Chief Justice of India (CJI) T S Thakur for listing of the appeal before an appropriate bench.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>At the outset, the AG said that the Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been filed today morning but “we don’t have the copy of the judgement” as it was not declared and only a speaking order was passed.A bench headed by Justice Misra was sitting in the CJI’s court as the CJI was at a scheduled conference of High Court Chief Justices and judges in the national capital.
ALSO READ HC revokes President’s rule in Uttarakhand, Centre to move SC challenging HC orderThe High Court had on Thursday ordered restoration of the Harish Rawat-led Congress government in the state saying that the Centre did not have any concrete proof to impose the President’s rule.The court asked Chief Minister Harish Rawat to prove his government’s majority on the floor of the Assembly on the 29th of this month.
ALSO READ Uttarakhand crisis: Rahul Gandhi flays PM Modi, says ‘democracy wins’Cherishing the Uttarakhand High Court’s verdict, Rawat said it was a very big moment, which he would never forget.Meanwhile, Squarely blaming the ‘internal strife’ within the Congress Party for the political crisis in Uttarakhand, the Bharatiya Janata party (BJP) on Friday said the former has no right to point fingers at them, as the grand old party has toppled several governments in the past.
ALSO READ Uttarakhand crisis: Harish Rawat govt is still in minority, claims BJPSpeaking to ANI, BJP national secretary Shrikant Sharma further questioned the Congress’ silence on allegations of former chief minister Harish Rawat indulging in the trading of MLAs.”All this happened because of the internal scuffle within the Congress Party. Now they are pointing fingers at us. The issue here is how Harish Rawat is indulging in trading (of MLAs). Congress leaders comment on every matter in the country, but why are they silent on this corruption in Uttarakhand. There is a video which clearly shows him (Rawat) indulging in trading,” Sharma said.”This is the same Congress which has hit a century in toppling the governments, whether it is Indira ji or Rajiv ji or Nehru ji. Sonia ji had done similar things during Arunachal crisis, look what happened, they failed,” he added.Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi had said on Thursday that he will mention the matter before the apex court seeking a stay on the verdict.(With PTI and ANI inputs)
New Delhi: Aspirants for the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) for premier engineering institutes from 2017 onwards will be required to score 75 percent marks in their Class 12 board exams, an official statement said on Thursday.
“For the candidates to qualify in the JEE, they shall have secured at least 75 percent marks or be in the top 20 percentile in the 12th class examination conducted by respective Boards. For Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes students, this condition shall be relaxed to 65 percent marks,” said the human resource development ministry statement.
“The performance of the students in the 12th class examination shall be a crucial parameter for determining the eligibility of the student for the JEE,” it said, adding that this decision was taken after examining the report of the Ashok Misra committee and considering the public feedback, and had been notified in the JEE pattern from 2017.
The present system of giving 40 percent weightage for the Class 12 marks in calculating the ranks in the main round of JEE has also been done away with, it said but all other JEE systems shall remain unchanged.
Claiming that Prime Minister Narendra Modi was getting support of the entire country, Union Minister Kalraj Misra today alleged that Congress and Left parties were out to tarnish his image. “The Prime Minister is getting support of everyone in the country as he had got of 6 crore people belonging to all faiths in Gujarat,” the MSME minister said at the conclusion of BJP’s state working committee meeting here.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>”But Congress and Left parties are not able to digest this fact and are out to tarnish the image of the Prime Minister and also that of the country,” Misra said. Training his guns at former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, he said, “During the previous government our prime minister was considered as weak PM all over the world and the country was regarded as a land of scams.”But Modi went abroad and changed this image and upheld the dignity of 125 crore Indians,” Misra said.Referring to the JNU row, he said some anarchists and members of opposition groups were trying to “destabilise” the country by raising anti-national slogans and the incident of sedition that took place there is being described as one of “freedom of expression”.Earlier, inaugurating the working committee meeting, national vice president of the party and incharge of state affairs Om Mathur said that an atmosphere of confidence has been created.Mathur said both BSP and SP together have made Uttar Pradesh backward and people here have been made to face exploitation.”We will have to connect with the minds and hearts of voters and will have to go till the grassroot-level to resolve their problems,” Mathur said.BJP state unit president Laxmikant Bajpai in his address said the chief minister, who holds the home portfolio, is responsible for the bad law and order and atrocities on dalits in the state.He termed BSP President Mayawati as “vote ki saudagar”. Besides discussing the state of affairs in Uttar Pradesh under the Samajwadi Party government, corruption and bad law and order, the working committee also criticised the previous BSP government. It passed a resolution for all round development of the state
Putting intelligence agencies IB, RAW and NTRO under judicial scanner may “dent” national security, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said while rejecting a PIL seeking to make these bodies accountable to Parliament for their actions and expenditure.”We are not inclined to entertain this petition…Trying to get into the domain of intelligence may create dent in national security,” a bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh said.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>It rejected the plea of Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NGO CPIL which has filed the PIL, claiming that in every advanced democracies like the UK and the USA, such agencies are accountable to parliamentary panels as they spend tax- payers’ monies.”What they do in the United Kingdom, we cannot practice in India,” it said, adding “They (Centre and Parliament) must be having some measures. It cannot be said that they do not have any mechanism. You need not legislate on all issues. You need to have some kind of caution also, otherwise, the very purpose will be lost.””We do not think the court should entertain such kinds of petitions which deal with security of the country,” it said.The bench said that irrespective of nature of the PIL, any plea that may dent national security, should not be entertained by courts.”As a student of History, Law and Literature, I do not think, any court should enter into this territory,” Justice Misra, heading the bench, said.On the submission that this court had issued notice on the PIL way back in 2013 and it should not be dismissed like this, the bench asked Bhushan to give suggestions to Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi instead.The apex court had in 2013 issued notice to the Centre asking to respond on the PIL seeking to bring the agencies under the oversight of Parliament and CAG.The NGO’s petition had sought directions from the court for parliamentary oversight and financial auditing of Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), Intelligence Bureau (IB) and National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) by CAG like in several developed countries. The NGO had submitted that the agencies were being misused for political purposes and there was an urgent need to make these organisations accountable to Parliament.On February 1, 2013, advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO, had submitted that India was the only democracy in the world whose intelligence agencies have no legitimacy in the eyes of the law and were not accountable to the people or Parliament.The bench had said it is a policy matter to be decided by the government, but had agreed to hear the plea after the petitioner contended that earlier too the court had passed directions on policy matters.”Former heads of these organisations have published books on how the money is misused and how the agencies are misused for political purposes,” the petition had said, adding that accountability is required as “more than rupees ten thousand crore is granted to these agencies out of the consolidated fund of India”.