Another Indian sports body is in danger of being banned. The Indian Olympic Association has been placed under a committee of administrators by the Delhi high court.

Delhi High Court appoints three-member COA to take over IOA

The Delhi High Court has given a split verdict on the issue of criminalization of marital rape. A division bench comprising of two judges, gave conflicting views on plea seeking to criminalize marital rape in India.

Delhi High Court's split verdict on Marital rape; consent of women still an issue?

The rescue operations have ended after a fatal accident at the Trikut Ropeway service in Jharkhand's Deoghar in India took place on Sunday, authorities said.&nbsp;

The cars collided when one of them became partly dislodged from its cable. None of the cars fell to the ground but both became immobilised.&nbsp;

Reports have stated that the accident occurred due to the breaking of the sap of the ropeway operated on the mountain.&nbsp;

All the tourists trapped in cable cars have been rescued, while one more person fell off a helicopter when she was being winched up. The death toll in the incident is reported to be three.&nbsp;

"Three people have died in the mishap, including two tourists who fell from helicopters on Monday and Tuesday during rescue attempts, while 12 injured people are undergoing treatment at hospitals," officials said as quoted by news agencies.&nbsp;

Additional Director General of Police RK Mallick told India-based news agency PTI, "Of the remaining 15 people trapped in cable cars, 14 have been rescued while a woman fell off the chopper during the course of rescue operation."&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
The woman has been identified as 60-year-old Shobha Devi, who was apparently declared dead on being taken to a hospital.&nbsp;

The rescue operations were undertaken jointly by the Indian Air Force (IAF), Army, Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) and the district personnel.&nbsp;

The aerial tramway takes pilgrims to the top of a hill called Trikut, which Hindus consider holy.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, Jharkhand High Court on Tuesday took suo motu cognizance of the mishap and ordered an inquiry into the matter. The court will hear the matter on April 26. The state has to file a detailed inquiry report through an affidavit.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/IAF?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#IAF</a> carried out rescue of stranded passengers on the Trikut Hills ropeway in Deoghar district of Jharkhand on 11 &amp; 12 Apr 22. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/IAF?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#IAF</a> Mi-17V5 &amp; ALH Mk III heptrs flew 28 sorties &amp; 26 hrs during this activity.
— Indian Air Force (@IAF_MCC) <a href="https://twitter.com/IAF_MCC/status/1513808410327674884?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 12, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

The rescue operations have ended after a fatal accident at the Trikut Ropeway service in Jharkhand's Deoghar in India took place on Sunday, authorities said. The cars collided when one of them became partly dislodged from its cable.

The rescue operations have ended after a fatal accident at the Trikut Ropeway service in Jharkhand's Deoghar in India took place on Sunday, authorities said. The cars collided when one of them became partly dislodged from its cable. None of the cars fell to the ground but both became immobilised. Reports have stated that the accident occurred due to the breaking of the sap of the ropeway operated on the mountain. All the tourists trapped in cable cars have been rescued, while one more person fell off a helicopter when she was being winched up. The death toll in the incident is reported to be three. "Three people have died in the mishap, including two tourists who fell from helicopters on Monday and Tuesday during rescue attempts, while 12 injured people are undergoing treatment at hospitals," officials said as quoted by news agencies. Additional Director General of Police RK Mallick told India-based news agency PTI, "Of the remaining 15 people trapped in cable cars, 14 have been rescued while a woman fell off the chopper during the course of rescue operation." The woman has been identified as 60-year-old Shobha Devi, who was apparently declared dead on being taken to a hospital. The rescue operations were undertaken jointly by the Indian Air Force (IAF), Army, Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) and the district personnel. The aerial tramway takes pilgrims to the top of a hill called Trikut, which Hindus consider holy. Meanwhile, Jharkhand High Court on Tuesday took suo motu cognizance of the mishap and ordered an inquiry into the matter. The court will hear the matter on April 26. The state has to file a detailed inquiry report through an affidavit. #IAF carried out rescue of stranded passengers on the Trikut Hills ropeway in Deoghar district of Jharkhand on 11 & 12 Apr 22. #IAF Mi-17V5 & ALH Mk III heptrs flew 28 sorties & 26 hrs during this activity. — Indian Air Force (@IAF_MCC) April 12, 2022 ×

VIDEO | Jharkhand ropeway accident: Three dead, trapped tourists rescued; HC orders inquiry

An appeal has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the direction of the Karnataka High Court that has asked students not to insist on wearing any cloth on campuses of educational institutions which can instigate people, till the matter is resolved.

The plea filed by a student has sought a stay on the direction of the high court, which is hearing the hijab issue, as well as the proceedings going on before the three-judge bench.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/lifestyle/news-remember-burkini-the-other-controversial-outfit-before-hijab-row-452193">Remember Burkini? The other controversial outfit before Hijab row</a>

The appeal contended that the high court has sought to curtail the fundamental right of Muslim student women by not allowing them to wear the hijab.

The high court has posted the matter for Monday and also said educational institutions can resume classes for students.

The three-judge full bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice J M Khazi and Justice Krishna S Dixit, which was formed on Wednesday, also said it wants the matter to be resolved at the earliest but till that time peace and tranquillity is to be maintained.

"Till the disposal of the matter, you people should not insist on wearing all these religious things," Awasthi had said.

"We will pass an order. Let the schools-colleges start. But till the matter is resolved, no student should insist on wearing religious dress", he had said.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/hijab-row-indian-court-asks-students-not-to-wear-religious-things-till-disposal-of-the-matter-452163">Hijab row: Indian court asks students not to wear 'religious things' till disposal of the matter</a>

On Wednesday, Justice Dixit, who was hearing the case, referred the case to Justice Awasthi's consideration with a view that a larger bench may look into the case.

The Hijab row started in December end when a few students started coming to a government pre-university college in Udupi wearing Hijab. To protest against it, some Hindu students turned up wearing saffron scarves.

Watch |&nbsp;Gravitas Plus: Women, Hijab &amp; Choice

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-plus-women-hijab-choice-370243/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The row spread to other educational institutions in different parts of the State, and the protests took a violent turn at some places earlier this week, prompting the government on Tuesday to declare three days holiday for the institutions.

An appeal has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the direction of the Karnataka High Court that has asked students not to insist on wearing any cloth on campuses of educational institutions which can instigate people, till the matter is resolved.

An appeal has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the direction of the Karnataka High Court that has asked students not to insist on wearing any cloth on campuses of educational institutions which can instigate people, till the matter is resolved. The plea filed by a student has sought a stay on the direction of the high court, which is hearing the hijab issue, as well as the proceedings going on before the three-judge bench. Also read | Remember Burkini? The other controversial outfit before Hijab row The appeal contended that the high court has sought to curtail the fundamental right of Muslim student women by not allowing them to wear the hijab. The high court has posted the matter for Monday and also said educational institutions can resume classes for students. The three-judge full bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice J M Khazi and Justice Krishna S Dixit, which was formed on Wednesday, also said it wants the matter to be resolved at the earliest but till that time peace and tranquillity is to be maintained. "Till the disposal of the matter, you people should not insist on wearing all these religious things," Awasthi had said. "We will pass an order. Let the schools-colleges start. But till the matter is resolved, no student should insist on wearing religious dress", he had said. Also read | Hijab row: Indian court asks students not to wear 'religious things' till disposal of the matter On Wednesday, Justice Dixit, who was hearing the case, referred the case to Justice Awasthi's consideration with a view that a larger bench may look into the case. The Hijab row started in December end when a few students started coming to a government pre-university college in Udupi wearing Hijab. To protest against it, some Hindu students turned up wearing saffron scarves. Watch | Gravitas Plus: Women, Hijab & Choice The row spread to other educational institutions in different parts of the State, and the protests took a violent turn at some places earlier this week, prompting the government on Tuesday to declare three days holiday for the institutions.

Hijab row: Plea filed in SC challenging Karnataka HC order

While hearing a batch of petitions challenging the ban on hijab in colleges, the high court&nbsp;in India's southern Karnataka state&nbsp;on Thursday asked students not to wear "religious things"&nbsp;till the disposal of the matter.

A bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice JM Khazi of the High Court said that it will pass an order directing the reopening of colleges and asked students not to insist on wearing religious things till the disposal of the matter."Peace and tranquillity must be restored," the court said while adjourning the matter for Monday.

Yesterday, a single bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit of High Court had referred the petitions filed by Muslim girl students to a larger bench while observing that important questions relating to Constitutional rights and personal law are involved.

The hijab protests in the state began in January this year when some students at the Government Girls PU college in Udupi district in Karnataka alleged that they had been barred from attending classes.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/look-at-your-own-record-indian-envoy-summoned-over-hijab-controversy-hits-back-at-pakistan-452080">‘Look at your own record’: Indian envoy summoned over hijab controversy hits back at Pakistan</a>

During the protests, some students claimed they were denied entry into the college for wearing hijab.Following this incident, students of different colleges arrived at Shanteshwar Education Trust in Vijayapura wearing saffron stoles.

The situation was the same in several colleges in the Udipi district.The pre-University education board had released a circular stating that students can wear only the uniform approved by the school administration and no other religious practices will be allowed in colleges.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/karnataka-hijab-row-from-dress-code-to-protests-what-really-is-the-issue-451444">Karnataka hijab row: From dress code to protests, what really is the issue?</a>

Following these protests, a three-day holiday from February 9 has been declared in all the universities under the Department of Higher Education and colleges under the department of Collegiate and Technical Education (DCTE).

On Tuesday, the Karnataka High Court also appealed to the student community and the public at large to maintain peace and tranquillity while hearing various pleas challenging a ban on hijab in the state.&nbsp;

While hearing a batch of petitions challenging the ban on hijab in colleges, the high court in India's southern Karnataka state on Thursday asked students not to wear "religious things" till the disposal of the matter.

While hearing a batch of petitions challenging the ban on hijab in colleges, the high court in India's southern Karnataka state on Thursday asked students not to wear "religious things" till the disposal of the matter. A bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice JM Khazi of the High Court said that it will pass an order directing the reopening of colleges and asked students not to insist on wearing religious things till the disposal of the matter."Peace and tranquillity must be restored," the court said while adjourning the matter for Monday. Yesterday, a single bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit of High Court had referred the petitions filed by Muslim girl students to a larger bench while observing that important questions relating to Constitutional rights and personal law are involved. The hijab protests in the state began in January this year when some students at the Government Girls PU college in Udupi district in Karnataka alleged that they had been barred from attending classes. Also read | ‘Look at your own record’: Indian envoy summoned over hijab controversy hits back at Pakistan During the protests, some students claimed they were denied entry into the college for wearing hijab.Following this incident, students of different colleges arrived at Shanteshwar Education Trust in Vijayapura wearing saffron stoles. The situation was the same in several colleges in the Udipi district.The pre-University education board had released a circular stating that students can wear only the uniform approved by the school administration and no other religious practices will be allowed in colleges. Also read | Karnataka hijab row: From dress code to protests, what really is the issue? Following these protests, a three-day holiday from February 9 has been declared in all the universities under the Department of Higher Education and colleges under the department of Collegiate and Technical Education (DCTE). On Tuesday, the Karnataka High Court also appealed to the student community and the public at large to maintain peace and tranquillity while hearing various pleas challenging a ban on hijab in the state.

Hijab row: Indian court asks students not to wear 'religious things' till disposal of the matter

A judgement by an Indian high court lowering the sentence of a man who is convicted of forcing a 10-year-old boy to perform oral sex has caused outrage across the country.

The Allahabad High Court in the northern Uttar Pradesh state had ruled that the man's offence did not fall under the stringent the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act’s definition of “aggravated penetrative sexual assault”, which carries a jail sentence of minimum 10 years.

Instead, the court said the offence should be viewed as “penetrative sexual assault" - a lesser offence that carries a minimum seven-year jail term.

Justice Anil Kumar Ojha of the Allahabad High Court passed his order on November 18, in which he upheld the conviction but questioned which section of POCSO would be applicable.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indias-sc-sets-aside-lower-courts-ruling-that-skin-to-skin-contact-is-essential-for-sexual-offence-case-430241">India's SC sets aside lower court's ruling that skin-to-skin contact is essential for sexual offence case</a>

“Perusal of the record reveals that informant and victim have supported the prosecution story and the evidence of prosecution witnesses are cogent, trustworthy, credible and probable, hence, finding with regard to conviction is confirmed,” he said.

The order caused outrage across India with many calling the judgement regressive.

Parliamentarian Mahua Moitra was among those who expressed her anger at the order.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Oral sex doesn’t fall under ‘aggravated sexual assault’ in POCSO, says Allahabad HC after Bombay HC shockingly said skin to skin contact necessary for POCSO offence. 
 
Wake up High Courts- POCSO meant to save kids from vilest crimes. Don’t dilute it.
— Mahua Moitra (@MahuaMoitra) <a href="https://twitter.com/MahuaMoitra/status/1463180603210145792?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 23, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

“Wake up High Courts - Pocso meant to save kids from vilest crimes. Don't dilute it,” she tweeted.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Allahabad HC lowers penalty imposed by Special Sessions Court on a convict guilty of having oral sex with a 10-year-old child in lieu of Rs 20 !! 
 
Reason - the crime committed by him is 'less serious' 
 
Are our Courts encouraging children prostitution by paedophiles?
— Katyusha (@Indian10000000) <a href="https://twitter.com/Indian10000000/status/1463083938302226437?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 23, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The judgement comes only days after the Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Bombay High Court which acquitted an accused who was jailed for groping a 12-year-old girl.

The high court ruled that the most important ingredient in convicting sexual offenders under POCSO Act is “sexual intent and not skin-to-skin.”

(With inputs from agencies)

A judgement by an Indian high court lowering the sentence of a man who is convicted of forcing a 10-year-old boy to perform oral sex has caused outrage across the country.

A judgement by an Indian high court lowering the sentence of a man who is convicted of forcing a 10-year-old boy to perform oral sex has caused outrage across the country. The Allahabad High Court in the northern Uttar Pradesh state had ruled that the man's offence did not fall under the stringent the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act’s definition of “aggravated penetrative sexual assault”, which carries a jail sentence of minimum 10 years. Instead, the court said the offence should be viewed as “penetrative sexual assault" - a lesser offence that carries a minimum seven-year jail term. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha of the Allahabad High Court passed his order on November 18, in which he upheld the conviction but questioned which section of POCSO would be applicable. Also read | India's SC sets aside lower court's ruling that skin-to-skin contact is essential for sexual offence case “Perusal of the record reveals that informant and victim have supported the prosecution story and the evidence of prosecution witnesses are cogent, trustworthy, credible and probable, hence, finding with regard to conviction is confirmed,” he said. The order caused outrage across India with many calling the judgement regressive. Parliamentarian Mahua Moitra was among those who expressed her anger at the order. Oral sex doesn’t fall under ‘aggravated sexual assault’ in POCSO, says Allahabad HC after Bombay HC shockingly said skin to skin contact necessary for POCSO offence. Wake up High Courts- POCSO meant to save kids from vilest crimes. Don’t dilute it. — Mahua Moitra (@MahuaMoitra) November 23, 2021 × “Wake up High Courts - Pocso meant to save kids from vilest crimes. Don't dilute it,” she tweeted. Allahabad HC lowers penalty imposed by Special Sessions Court on a convict guilty of having oral sex with a 10-year-old child in lieu of Rs 20 !! Reason - the crime committed by him is 'less serious' Are our Courts encouraging children prostitution by paedophiles? — Katyusha (@Indian10000000) November 23, 2021 × The judgement comes only days after the Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Bombay High Court which acquitted an accused who was jailed for groping a 12-year-old girl. The high court ruled that the most important ingredient in convicting sexual offenders under POCSO Act is “sexual intent and not skin-to-skin.” (With inputs from agencies)

Indian high court's judgement lowering sentence of man accused in child abuse causes outrage

Delhi High Court on Friday asked social media giant Twitter to remove objectionable material relating to Hindu Goddess. The court observed that Twitter should respect sentiments of the public as it was doing business for them.

The bench said Twitter was doing a good job and people were happy with it.

"Things are going to be removed or not?" the court asked the counsel for Twitter.

"You should respect the sentiments of general public as you are doing business for public at large. Their sentiments shall be given due importance... Why you should do things like this. You should remove this," a bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh said.

"You remove it. You have done it in Rahul Gandhi's case also," the bench added.

Sidharth Luthra, senior advocate representing Twitter, said that if the court mentions it in the order, Twitter will abide by the direction.

The matter will be heard further on November 30.

Petition, in this case, was filed by one Aditya Singh Deshwal who said that he came across highly objectionable posts on Hindu Goddess Kaali which was put up by user with the name @AtheistRepublic. He said in his petition that the goddess was represented in disgraceful and outrageous manner.

The petitioner, represented through senior advocate Sanjay Poddar, said he intimated the grievance officer of Twitter that the content put by the used was in grave contravention of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 and non-compliance of the rules shall make Twitter lose its legal immunity provided under the Information Technology Act.

He claimed that Twitter repudiated that the content in the account is not of a category for which it takes action and therefore, it cannot be removed.

The plea sought direction for Twitter to remove the objectionable content from its platform and also permanently suspend the concerned used account.

(With inputs from agencies)

Delhi High Court on Friday asked social media giant Twitter to remove objectionable material relating to Hindu Goddess. The court observed that Twitter should respect sentiments of the public as it was doing business for them.

Delhi High Court on Friday asked social media giant Twitter to remove objectionable material relating to Hindu Goddess. The court observed that Twitter should respect sentiments of the public as it was doing business for them. The bench said Twitter was doing a good job and people were happy with it. "Things are going to be removed or not?" the court asked the counsel for Twitter. "You should respect the sentiments of general public as you are doing business for public at large. Their sentiments shall be given due importance... Why you should do things like this. You should remove this," a bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh said. "You remove it. You have done it in Rahul Gandhi's case also," the bench added. Sidharth Luthra, senior advocate representing Twitter, said that if the court mentions it in the order, Twitter will abide by the direction. The matter will be heard further on November 30. Petition, in this case, was filed by one Aditya Singh Deshwal who said that he came across highly objectionable posts on Hindu Goddess Kaali which was put up by user with the name @AtheistRepublic. He said in his petition that the goddess was represented in disgraceful and outrageous manner. The petitioner, represented through senior advocate Sanjay Poddar, said he intimated the grievance officer of Twitter that the content put by the used was in grave contravention of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 and non-compliance of the rules shall make Twitter lose its legal immunity provided under the Information Technology Act. He claimed that Twitter repudiated that the content in the account is not of a category for which it takes action and therefore, it cannot be removed. The plea sought direction for Twitter to remove the objectionable content from its platform and also permanently suspend the concerned used account. (With inputs from agencies)

Twitter asked by Delhi High Court to remove objectionable content on Hindu Goddess

The Indian government has defended in the Delhi High Court the legal validity of its new IT rule requiring messaging apps, such as WhatsApp, to trace&nbsp;the first originator of the information, saying that the law empowers it to expect such entities to create safe cyberspace and counter illegal content either themselves or by assisting the law enforcement agencies.

The government said that Section 87 of the Information Technology Act gave it the power to formulate Rule 4(2) of the Intermediary Rules -- which mandates a significant social media intermediary to enable the identification of the first originator of information in legitimate state interest&nbsp;of curbing the menace of fake news and offences concerning national security and public order as well as women and children.

In its affidavit filed in response to WhatsApp's challenge to the rule on the ground that breaking the encryption invades its users&nbsp;privacy, the Centre has claimed that platforms monetise users&nbsp;information for business/ commercial purposes are not legally entitled to claim that it protects privacy.

Also Read |&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/facebook-to-pay-french-publishers-for-news-content-422671">Facebook to pay French publishers for news content</a>

Petitioners (WhatsApp and Facebook), being multi-billion dollar enterprises, almost singularly on the basis of mining, owning and storing the private data of natural persons across the world and thereafter monetizing the same, cannot claim any representative privacy right on behalf of the natural persons using the platform,&nbsp;said the affidavit filed by Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.

WhatsApp collects users&nbsp;personal information and shares it with Facebook and third-party entities for business/commercial purposes (WhatsApp's privacy policy of 2016 and its 2021 update). In fact, the regulators of various countries dearly hold that Facebook should be fixed with accountability for its services and data management practices,&nbsp;it added.

The government&nbsp;said reasons regarding 'technical difficulties cannot be an excuse to refuse compliance to the law of the land and if a platform does not have the means to trace the first originator&nbsp;without breaking the encryption then it is the platform which ought to develop such mechanism&nbsp;in larger public duty.

The Rule does not contemplate the platforms breaking the end-to-end encryption. The Rule only contemplates the platform to provide the details of the first originator by any means or mechanism available with the platform. If the platform does not have such means, the platform ought to develop such mechanism considering the platforms widespread prevalence and the larger public duty, the affidavit said.

The government said if the intermediary is not able to prevent or detect the criminal activities happening on its platform, then the problem lies in the platform's architecture and the platform must rectify their architecture and not expect the change of legislation. Reasons regarding 'technical difficulties' cannot be an excuse to refuse compliance to the law of the land.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/science-tech/facebook-planning-to-change-its-name-announcement-likely-in-a-week-report-422190">Facebook planning to change its name, announcement likely in a week: Report</a>

In August, a bench headed by Chief Justice DN Patel had sought the Centre's stand on WhatsApp petition challenging new rule on the ground it violates the right to privacy and is unconstitutional.

WhatsApp's parent company Facebook has also mounted a similar challenge to the rule.

In its plea, WhatsApp had said that the traceability requirement forced it break end-to-end encryption&nbsp;and thus infringe upon the fundamental rights to privacy and free speech of the hundreds of millions of citizens using its platform to communicate privately and securely.

The Centre, in its response, has said that the petition by WhatsApp is not maintainable as a challenge to the constitutionality of any Indian law is not maintainable at the instance of a foreign commercial entity. 
It further claimed that Rule 4(2) is an embodiment of competing rights of citizens of India&nbsp;and aims to preserve the rights of vulnerable citizens within the cyberspace who can be or are victims of cyber-crime.

The government said there are checks and balances to ensure that the rule is not misused or invoked in cases where other less intrusive means are effective in identifying the originator of the information. 
The identification of the first originator pertains only to viral content relating to heinous crimes, as specified in the rule, and not identifying all users or citizens, it said.

If the IT Rules 2021 are not implemented the law enforcement agencies will have difficulty in tracing the origin of fake messages and such messages will percolate in other platforms thereby disturbing peace and harmony in the society further leading to public order issues,&nbsp;the affidavit said.

The government has also said that in case of any legal proceeding having any message on the platform as evidence, WhatsApp would lose the defence of 'intermediary protection' but it does not mean that WhatsApp will be held guilty and its officials would be legally responsible.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/whatsapp-adds-indian-rupee-symbol-to-chat-box-for-digital-payments-417405">WhatsApp adds Indian Rupee symbol to chat box for digital payments&nbsp;</a>

The courts can include WhatsApp as a respondent and consider 'Contributory Negligence' and 'Vicarious liability on WhatsApp and its executives' (under Section 85). Such liabilities will fructify only when such a case comes up and WhatsApp is named as an entity that it is sufficiently proved that it has contributed to the commission of the crime,&nbsp;it added.

The government also said that the Supreme Court itself had asked the Central government to take all the steps necessary to identify persons who create and circulate electronic information&nbsp;about certain offences such as sexual abuse.&nbsp;

The Indian government has defended in the Delhi High Court the legal validity of its new IT rule requiring messaging apps, such as WhatsApp, to trace the first originator of the information, saying that the law empowers it to expect such entities to create safe cyberspace and counter illegal content either themselves or by assisting the law enforcement agencies.

The Indian government has defended in the Delhi High Court the legal validity of its new IT rule requiring messaging apps, such as WhatsApp, to trace the first originator of the information, saying that the law empowers it to expect such entities to create safe cyberspace and counter illegal content either themselves or by assisting the law enforcement agencies. The government said that Section 87 of the Information Technology Act gave it the power to formulate Rule 4(2) of the Intermediary Rules -- which mandates a significant social media intermediary to enable the identification of the first originator of information in legitimate state interest of curbing the menace of fake news and offences concerning national security and public order as well as women and children. In its affidavit filed in response to WhatsApp's challenge to the rule on the ground that breaking the encryption invades its users privacy, the Centre has claimed that platforms monetise users information for business/ commercial purposes are not legally entitled to claim that it protects privacy. Also Read | Facebook to pay French publishers for news content Petitioners (WhatsApp and Facebook), being multi-billion dollar enterprises, almost singularly on the basis of mining, owning and storing the private data of natural persons across the world and thereafter monetizing the same, cannot claim any representative privacy right on behalf of the natural persons using the platform, said the affidavit filed by Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. WhatsApp collects users personal information and shares it with Facebook and third-party entities for business/commercial purposes (WhatsApp's privacy policy of 2016 and its 2021 update). In fact, the regulators of various countries dearly hold that Facebook should be fixed with accountability for its services and data management practices, it added. The government said reasons regarding 'technical difficulties cannot be an excuse to refuse compliance to the law of the land and if a platform does not have the means to trace the first originator without breaking the encryption then it is the platform which ought to develop such mechanism in larger public duty. The Rule does not contemplate the platforms breaking the end-to-end encryption. The Rule only contemplates the platform to provide the details of the first originator by any means or mechanism available with the platform. If the platform does not have such means, the platform ought to develop such mechanism considering the platforms widespread prevalence and the larger public duty, the affidavit said. The government said if the intermediary is not able to prevent or detect the criminal activities happening on its platform, then the problem lies in the platform's architecture and the platform must rectify their architecture and not expect the change of legislation. Reasons regarding 'technical difficulties' cannot be an excuse to refuse compliance to the law of the land. Also read | Facebook planning to change its name, announcement likely in a week: Report In August, a bench headed by Chief Justice DN Patel had sought the Centre's stand on WhatsApp petition challenging new rule on the ground it violates the right to privacy and is unconstitutional. WhatsApp's parent company Facebook has also mounted a similar challenge to the rule. In its plea, WhatsApp had said that the traceability requirement forced it break end-to-end encryption and thus infringe upon the fundamental rights to privacy and free speech of the hundreds of millions of citizens using its platform to communicate privately and securely. The Centre, in its response, has said that the petition by WhatsApp is not maintainable as a challenge to the constitutionality of any Indian law is not maintainable at the instance of a foreign commercial entity. It further claimed that Rule 4(2) is an embodiment of competing rights of citizens of India and aims to preserve the rights of vulnerable citizens within the cyberspace who can be or are victims of cyber-crime. The government said there are checks and balances to ensure that the rule is not misused or invoked in cases where other less intrusive means are effective in identifying the originator of the information. The identification of the first originator pertains only to viral content relating to heinous crimes, as specified in the rule, and not identifying all users or citizens, it said. If the IT Rules 2021 are not implemented the law enforcement agencies will have difficulty in tracing the origin of fake messages and such messages will percolate in other platforms thereby disturbing peace and harmony in the society further leading to public order issues, the affidavit said. The government has also said that in case of any legal proceeding having any message on the platform as evidence, WhatsApp would lose the defence of 'intermediary protection' but it does not mean that WhatsApp will be held guilty and its officials would be legally responsible. Also Read | WhatsApp adds Indian Rupee symbol to chat box for digital payments The courts can include WhatsApp as a respondent and consider 'Contributory Negligence' and 'Vicarious liability on WhatsApp and its executives' (under Section 85). Such liabilities will fructify only when such a case comes up and WhatsApp is named as an entity that it is sufficiently proved that it has contributed to the commission of the crime, it added. The government also said that the Supreme Court itself had asked the Central government to take all the steps necessary to identify persons who create and circulate electronic information about certain offences such as sexual abuse.

Indian govt in high court defends IT rule requiring WhatsApp to trace originator of message

Campaigners including archaeologists and environmental groups have won a high court battle to prevent a road project that involves a tunnel near Stonehenge.

The plan involved constructing a £1.7bn scheme to overhaul eight miles of the A303 in Wiltshire next to the prehistoric monument. It was backed by the government last year.

However, the campaigners soon launched a judicial review calling for the decision to be overturned.

Mr Justice Holgate on Friday ruled that Grant Shapps acted 'irrationally and unlawfully' when he approved the project.&nbsp;

The court discovered that Shapps did not properly consider alternative schemes and that the decision-making process included no evidence of the impact on each individual asset at the world-famous historic site.

Campaigners from Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site (SSWHS), were quoted by The Guardian as saying that the court ruling “should be a wake-up call for the government”.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/stonehenge-could-lose-world-heritage-status-here-is-why-400296">Also read |&nbsp;Stonehenge could lose world heritage status, here is why</a>

They further said, “We could not be more pleased about the outcome of the legal challenge. The Stonehenge Alliance has campaigned from the start for a longer tunnel if a tunnel should be considered necessary.”

“It should look again at its roads programme and take action to reduce road traffic and eliminate any need to build new and wider roads that threaten the environment as well as our cultural heritage.”

Meanwhile, heritage bodies earlier said that&nbsp;

UNESCO would throw a “harsher spotlight” on the UK’s other 31 listed sites after Liverpool became only the third place in nearly 50 years to be stripped of its world heritage status.&nbsp;

Sites expected to come under the scrutiny of the body include Stonehenge, Edinburgh’s new and old towns, the Tower of London and Cornwall’s historic mining area.

The president of World Heritage UK, Chris Blandford, has complained that there was a “low awareness at the government level” of the importance of the country’s Unesco sites.&nbsp;

He further said many were critically underfunded and that ministers had shown a “great reluctance to want to make the most of our World Heritage offer”.

Campaigners including archaeologists and environmental groups have won a high court battle to prevent a road project that involves a tunnel near Stonehenge. The plan involved constructing a £1.

Campaigners including archaeologists and environmental groups have won a high court battle to prevent a road project that involves a tunnel near Stonehenge. The plan involved constructing a £1.7bn scheme to overhaul eight miles of the A303 in Wiltshire next to the prehistoric monument. It was backed by the government last year. However, the campaigners soon launched a judicial review calling for the decision to be overturned. Mr Justice Holgate on Friday ruled that Grant Shapps acted 'irrationally and unlawfully' when he approved the project. The court discovered that Shapps did not properly consider alternative schemes and that the decision-making process included no evidence of the impact on each individual asset at the world-famous historic site. Campaigners from Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site (SSWHS), were quoted by The Guardian as saying that the court ruling “should be a wake-up call for the government”. Also read | Stonehenge could lose world heritage status, here is why They further said, “We could not be more pleased about the outcome of the legal challenge. The Stonehenge Alliance has campaigned from the start for a longer tunnel if a tunnel should be considered necessary.” “It should look again at its roads programme and take action to reduce road traffic and eliminate any need to build new and wider roads that threaten the environment as well as our cultural heritage.” Meanwhile, heritage bodies earlier said that UNESCO would throw a “harsher spotlight” on the UK’s other 31 listed sites after Liverpool became only the third place in nearly 50 years to be stripped of its world heritage status. Sites expected to come under the scrutiny of the body include Stonehenge, Edinburgh’s new and old towns, the Tower of London and Cornwall’s historic mining area. The president of World Heritage UK, Chris Blandford, has complained that there was a “low awareness at the government level” of the importance of the country’s Unesco sites. He further said many were critically underfunded and that ministers had shown a “great reluctance to want to make the most of our World Heritage offer”.

High court victory for Stonehenge campaigners, here is all you need to know

Following news that IDBI Bank has entirely recovered its debts from the now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines, fugitive tycoon Vijay Mallya criticised banks for claiming he owed them money on Thursday.&nbsp;

Vijay Mallya launched a tirade on Twitter and said, "And the Banks say I owe them money!".

He shared a report on IDBI Bank fully recovering its dues from now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines.

According to the news clipping, IDBI Bank recovered ₹7.5 billion from Kingfisher.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
And the Banks say I owe them money ! <a href="https://t.co/XnWSjXnnF9">pic.twitter.com/XnWSjXnnF9</a>
— Vijay Mallya (@TheVijayMallya) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheVijayMallya/status/1420732695760486400?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 29, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

His Tweet comes after a British court awarded him a bankruptcy order, clearing the way for a consortium of Indian banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI) to seek a global freezing order to recover a debt due by Kingfisher Airlines.&nbsp;

On July 26, the fugitive businessman claimed that the Enforcement Directorate is seizing assets "worth ₹140 billion at the behest of government banks against a debt of ₹62 billion."

Mallya also tweeted that the SBI-led consortium of banks had asked "court to make me bankrupt as they may have to return money to the ED," which he described as "incredible."&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
ED attach my assets worth 14K crores at behest of Govt Banks against debt of 6.2K crores.They restore assets to Banks who recover 9K crores in cash and retain security over 5K crores more.Banks ask Court to make me Bankrupt as they may have to return money to the ED. Incredible.
— Vijay Mallya (@TheVijayMallya) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheVijayMallya/status/1419724187325845508?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 26, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The 65-year-old businessman remains on bail in the UK while a "confidential" legal matter, believed to be related to an asylum application, is resolved in connection with the unrelated extradition proceedings.

Mallya, who fled to the UK in March 2016, is wanted in India over a default of ₹90 billion that was loaned to Kingfisher Airlines (KFA) by several banks. India has been seeking his extradition from the UK. He had in the past offered to repay 100 per cent of "public money" but accused the banks and government of refusing his offer.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

Following news that IDBI Bank has entirely recovered its debts from the now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines, fugitive tycoon Vijay Mallya criticised banks for claiming he owed them money on Thursday.

Following news that IDBI Bank has entirely recovered its debts from the now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines, fugitive tycoon Vijay Mallya criticised banks for claiming he owed them money on Thursday. Vijay Mallya launched a tirade on Twitter and said, "And the Banks say I owe them money!". He shared a report on IDBI Bank fully recovering its dues from now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines. According to the news clipping, IDBI Bank recovered ₹7.5 billion from Kingfisher. And the Banks say I owe them money ! pic.twitter.com/XnWSjXnnF9 — Vijay Mallya (@TheVijayMallya) July 29, 2021 × His Tweet comes after a British court awarded him a bankruptcy order, clearing the way for a consortium of Indian banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI) to seek a global freezing order to recover a debt due by Kingfisher Airlines. On July 26, the fugitive businessman claimed that the Enforcement Directorate is seizing assets "worth ₹140 billion at the behest of government banks against a debt of ₹62 billion." Mallya also tweeted that the SBI-led consortium of banks had asked "court to make me bankrupt as they may have to return money to the ED," which he described as "incredible." ED attach my assets worth 14K crores at behest of Govt Banks against debt of 6.2K crores.They restore assets to Banks who recover 9K crores in cash and retain security over 5K crores more.Banks ask Court to make me Bankrupt as they may have to return money to the ED. Incredible. — Vijay Mallya (@TheVijayMallya) July 26, 2021 × The 65-year-old businessman remains on bail in the UK while a "confidential" legal matter, believed to be related to an asylum application, is resolved in connection with the unrelated extradition proceedings. Mallya, who fled to the UK in March 2016, is wanted in India over a default of ₹90 billion that was loaned to Kingfisher Airlines (KFA) by several banks. India has been seeking his extradition from the UK. He had in the past offered to repay 100 per cent of "public money" but accused the banks and government of refusing his offer. (With inputs from agencies)

Vijay Mallya mocks banks for saying he still owes money, shares report

The London High Court declared fugitive Indian businessman Vijay Mallya bankrupt on July 26 in a major victory for Indian banks.

This will clear the way for a group of Indian banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI) to seek a worldwide freezing order to seize Vijay Mallya's Indian assets in order to recover debt owed by his now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines.

"As at 15:42 (UK time), I adjudicate Dr Mallya bankrupt," Chief Insolvencies and Companies Court (ICC) Judge Michael Briggs said in his ruling during a virtual hearing of the Chancery Division of the High Court in London.

The Indian banks, represented by the law firm TLT LLP and barrister Marcia Shekerdemian, had argued for the bankruptcy order to be granted in favour of the Indian banks. 
 
Watch:

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/london-court-declares-fugitive-businessman-vijay-mallya-bankrupt-indian-banks-can-realise-debt-400845/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Mallya reportedly attempted to appeal the High Court decision but was denied permission to do so.

An application by a lender consortium led by the SBI to alter their bankruptcy case in favour of surrendering their security over Mallya's assets in India was upheld by a UK court earlier this year in May.

Meanwhile, the 65-year-old businessman remains in the UK on bail pending the resolution of a "secret" court matter, believed to be related to an asylum application, in connection with unrelated extradition proceedings.

His lawyer, Philip Marshall, asked for a stay and a postponement of the ruling while legal challenges in India are still pending.

The judge, however, denied the requests, concluding that there was "insufficient proof" that the debt would be paid in full to the petitioners within a reasonable time. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

The London High Court declared fugitive Indian businessman Vijay Mallya bankrupt on July 26 in a major victory for Indian banks. This will clear the way for a group of Indian banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI) to seek a worldwide freezing order to seize Vijay Mallya's Indian assets in order to recover debt owed by his now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines.

The London High Court declared fugitive Indian businessman Vijay Mallya bankrupt on July 26 in a major victory for Indian banks. This will clear the way for a group of Indian banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI) to seek a worldwide freezing order to seize Vijay Mallya's Indian assets in order to recover debt owed by his now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines. "As at 15:42 (UK time), I adjudicate Dr Mallya bankrupt," Chief Insolvencies and Companies Court (ICC) Judge Michael Briggs said in his ruling during a virtual hearing of the Chancery Division of the High Court in London. The Indian banks, represented by the law firm TLT LLP and barrister Marcia Shekerdemian, had argued for the bankruptcy order to be granted in favour of the Indian banks. Watch: Mallya reportedly attempted to appeal the High Court decision but was denied permission to do so. An application by a lender consortium led by the SBI to alter their bankruptcy case in favour of surrendering their security over Mallya's assets in India was upheld by a UK court earlier this year in May. Meanwhile, the 65-year-old businessman remains in the UK on bail pending the resolution of a "secret" court matter, believed to be related to an asylum application, in connection with unrelated extradition proceedings. His lawyer, Philip Marshall, asked for a stay and a postponement of the ruling while legal challenges in India are still pending. The judge, however, denied the requests, concluding that there was "insufficient proof" that the debt would be paid in full to the petitioners within a reasonable time. (With inputs from agencies)

UK court declares Vijay Mallya bankrupt, allowing Indian Banks to pursue recovery

Following the declaration of Vijay Mallya as "bankrupt" by the UK High Court, the fugitive businessman claimed that the Enforcement Directorate is seizing assets "worth ₹140 billion at the behest of government banks against a debt of ₹62 billion."

Mallya tweeted that the SBI-led consortium of banks had asked "court to make me bankrupt as they may have to return money to the ED," which he described as "incredible."&nbsp; 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/uk-court-declares-vijay-mallya-bankrupt-allowing-indian-banks-to-pursue-recovery-400877">Also read | UK court declares Vijay Mallya bankrupt, allowing Indian Banks to pursue recovery</a> 
 
"ED attach my assets worth 14K crores at behest of Govt Banks against debt of 6.2K crores.They restore assets to Banks who recover 9K crores in cash and retain security over 5K crores more.Banks ask Court to make me Bankrupt as they may have to return money to the ED. Incredible," he tweeted.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
ED attach my assets worth 14K crores at behest of Govt Banks against debt of 6.2K crores.They restore assets to Banks who recover 9K crores in cash and retain security over 5K crores more.Banks ask Court to make me Bankrupt as they may have to return money to the ED. Incredible.
— Vijay Mallya (@TheVijayMallya) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheVijayMallya/status/1419724187325845508?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 26, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

On July 26, the London High Court declared the fugitive Indian businessman bankrupt, in a major victory for Indian banks.

This will clear the way for the group of Indian banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI) to seek a worldwide freezing order to seize Mallya's Indian assets in order to recover debt owed by his now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines.

"As at 15:42 (UK time), I adjudicate Dr Mallya bankrupt," Chief Insolvencies and Companies Court (ICC) Judge Michael Briggs said in his ruling during a virtual hearing of the Chancery Division of the High Court in London.

The Indian banks, represented by the law firm TLT LLP and barrister Marcia Shekerdemian, had argued for the bankruptcy order to be granted in favour of the Indian banks.

(With inputs from agencies)

Following the declaration of Vijay Mallya as "bankrupt" by the UK High Court, the fugitive businessman claimed that the Enforcement Directorate is seizing assets "worth ₹140 billion at the behest of government banks against a debt of ₹62 billion.

Following the declaration of Vijay Mallya as "bankrupt" by the UK High Court, the fugitive businessman claimed that the Enforcement Directorate is seizing assets "worth ₹140 billion at the behest of government banks against a debt of ₹62 billion." Mallya tweeted that the SBI-led consortium of banks had asked "court to make me bankrupt as they may have to return money to the ED," which he described as "incredible." Also read | UK court declares Vijay Mallya bankrupt, allowing Indian Banks to pursue recovery "ED attach my assets worth 14K crores at behest of Govt Banks against debt of 6.2K crores.They restore assets to Banks who recover 9K crores in cash and retain security over 5K crores more.Banks ask Court to make me Bankrupt as they may have to return money to the ED. Incredible," he tweeted. ED attach my assets worth 14K crores at behest of Govt Banks against debt of 6.2K crores.They restore assets to Banks who recover 9K crores in cash and retain security over 5K crores more.Banks ask Court to make me Bankrupt as they may have to return money to the ED. Incredible. — Vijay Mallya (@TheVijayMallya) July 26, 2021 × On July 26, the London High Court declared the fugitive Indian businessman bankrupt, in a major victory for Indian banks. This will clear the way for the group of Indian banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI) to seek a worldwide freezing order to seize Mallya's Indian assets in order to recover debt owed by his now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines. "As at 15:42 (UK time), I adjudicate Dr Mallya bankrupt," Chief Insolvencies and Companies Court (ICC) Judge Michael Briggs said in his ruling during a virtual hearing of the Chancery Division of the High Court in London. The Indian banks, represented by the law firm TLT LLP and barrister Marcia Shekerdemian, had argued for the bankruptcy order to be granted in favour of the Indian banks. (With inputs from agencies)

Attaching ₹140 billion assets over ₹62 billion debt 'incredible': Mallya on being declared bankrupt

While hearing a plea based case on Friday, a&nbsp;division bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh observed, “It would be a disaster if vaccines are administered without trials that too in case of children.”

Tia Gupta, a minor, had filed a PIL seeking immediate vaccination for minors between 12 and 17 years of age.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indian-govt-issues-guidelines-on-covid-19-in-children-says-remdesivir-not-recommended-390531">Indian govt issues guidelines on COVID-19 in children, says Remdesivir not recommended</a>

Based on this plea, an affidavit was submitted by the Centre which said that a government policy will be developed and children will be vaccinated once experts approve.

The Centre notified the High Court that clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines for children under 18 years of age are in progress and nearing completion.

Kailash Vasudev, appearing for the petitioner, argued that a specific timeline should be established for the completion of vaccine trials for children.

In response to which court officials warned that the case would be dismissed if the petitioner made such submissions. They added&nbsp;a timeline for the research was not possible.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/astrazeneca-vaccine-to-be-tested-on-children-to-test-efficacy-363946">AstraZeneca vaccine to be tested on children to test efficacy</a>

The Centre informed the Delhi High Court that Zydus Cadila's COVID-19 vaccine may be available soon for children in the 12 to 18 year age group.

They added that while the trial of Zydus Cadila for children between the ages of 12 and 18 has been concluded, it is still subject to statutory approvals.

Earlier this month, the Ahmedabad-based pharmaceutical firm sought emergency use approval for ZyCoV-D. World's first Plasmid DNA vaccine, it is administered in three doses.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/need-to-step-up-measures-for-well-being-protection-of-children-during-covid-19-second-wave-sc-judge-383754">Need to step up measures for well-being, protection of children during COVID-19 second wave: SC judge</a>

However, India's drug regulator, Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), is yet to approve the emergency use authorisation.&nbsp;

In addition, the affidavit claimed that vaccination is of the highest priority at the Center and that all endeavours are being made to reach 100 per cent vaccination in the shortest time possible while taking into account the availability of vaccine doses.

(With inputs from Agencies)

While hearing a plea based case on Friday, a division bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh observed, “It would be a disaster if vaccines are administered without trials that too in case of children.

While hearing a plea based case on Friday, a division bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh observed, “It would be a disaster if vaccines are administered without trials that too in case of children.” Tia Gupta, a minor, had filed a PIL seeking immediate vaccination for minors between 12 and 17 years of age. Also read | Indian govt issues guidelines on COVID-19 in children, says Remdesivir not recommended Based on this plea, an affidavit was submitted by the Centre which said that a government policy will be developed and children will be vaccinated once experts approve. The Centre notified the High Court that clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines for children under 18 years of age are in progress and nearing completion. Kailash Vasudev, appearing for the petitioner, argued that a specific timeline should be established for the completion of vaccine trials for children. In response to which court officials warned that the case would be dismissed if the petitioner made such submissions. They added a timeline for the research was not possible. Also read | AstraZeneca vaccine to be tested on children to test efficacy The Centre informed the Delhi High Court that Zydus Cadila's COVID-19 vaccine may be available soon for children in the 12 to 18 year age group. They added that while the trial of Zydus Cadila for children between the ages of 12 and 18 has been concluded, it is still subject to statutory approvals. Earlier this month, the Ahmedabad-based pharmaceutical firm sought emergency use approval for ZyCoV-D. World's first Plasmid DNA vaccine, it is administered in three doses. Also read | Need to step up measures for well-being, protection of children during COVID-19 second wave: SC judge However, India's drug regulator, Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), is yet to approve the emergency use authorisation. In addition, the affidavit claimed that vaccination is of the highest priority at the Center and that all endeavours are being made to reach 100 per cent vaccination in the shortest time possible while taking into account the availability of vaccine doses. (With inputs from Agencies)

Vaccinating children without clinical trials can be disastrous: Delhi HC

A consortium of Indian banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI) on Tuesday moved a step closer in their attempt to recover debt from loans paid out to Vijay Mallya's now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines after the High Court in London upheld an application to amend their bankruptcy petition, in favour of waiving their security over the businessman's assets in India.&nbsp;

Chief Insolvencies and Companies Court (ICC) Judge Michael Briggs handed down his judgment in favour of the banks to declare there is no public policy that prevents a waiver of security rights, as argued by Mallya's lawyers.&nbsp;

At a virtual hearing, July 26 was set as the date for final arguments for and against granting a bankruptcy order against Mallya after the banks accused him of trying to kick matters into the long grass and called on the bankruptcy petition to be brought to its inevitable end.&nbsp;

“I order that permission be given to amend the petition to read as follows: The Petitioners (banks) having the right to enforce any security held are willing, in the event of a bankruptcy order being made, to give up any such security for the benefit of all the bankrupt's creditors,” Justice Briggs' judgment reads.&nbsp;

"There is nothing in the statutory provisions that prevent the Petitioners from giving up security," he notes.&nbsp;

Mallya's barrister, Philip Marshall, had referenced witness statements of retired Indian judges in previous hearings to reiterate that there is public interest under Indian law by virtue of the banks being nationalised.&nbsp;

However, Justice Briggs found no impediment to the creditors relinquishing their security under Indian law because of the engagement of a principle concerning public interest and favoured the submissions made by retired Indian Supreme Court judge Gopala Gowda at a hearing in December 2020 in this regard.&nbsp;

“In my judgment the simple stance taken by Justice Gowda that Section 47 PIA 1920 is evidence of the ability of a secured creditor to relinquish the creditor's security is to be preferred," the ruling notes.&nbsp;

The Indian banks, represented by the law firm TLT LLP and barrister Marcia Shekerdemian, were also granted costs in totality for the petition hearings, as the ‘overall successful' party in the case.&nbsp;

"Dr Mallya should have been extradited by now. He was refused permission to go to the Supreme Court in May last year," Shekerdemian pointed out, in reference to one of Mallya's defence planks that the cases against him are 'politically motivated'.&nbsp;

The 65-year-old businessman remains on bail in the UK while a 'confidential' legal matter, believed to be related to an asylum application, is resolved in connection with the unrelated extradition proceedings. &nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

A consortium of Indian banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI) on Tuesday moved a step closer in their attempt to recover debt from loans paid out to Vijay Mallya's now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines after the High Court in London upheld an application to amend their bankruptcy petition, in favour of waiving their security over the businessman's assets in India.

A consortium of Indian banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI) on Tuesday moved a step closer in their attempt to recover debt from loans paid out to Vijay Mallya's now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines after the High Court in London upheld an application to amend their bankruptcy petition, in favour of waiving their security over the businessman's assets in India. Chief Insolvencies and Companies Court (ICC) Judge Michael Briggs handed down his judgment in favour of the banks to declare there is no public policy that prevents a waiver of security rights, as argued by Mallya's lawyers. At a virtual hearing, July 26 was set as the date for final arguments for and against granting a bankruptcy order against Mallya after the banks accused him of trying to kick matters into the long grass and called on the bankruptcy petition to be brought to its inevitable end. “I order that permission be given to amend the petition to read as follows: The Petitioners (banks) having the right to enforce any security held are willing, in the event of a bankruptcy order being made, to give up any such security for the benefit of all the bankrupt's creditors,” Justice Briggs' judgment reads. "There is nothing in the statutory provisions that prevent the Petitioners from giving up security," he notes. Mallya's barrister, Philip Marshall, had referenced witness statements of retired Indian judges in previous hearings to reiterate that there is public interest under Indian law by virtue of the banks being nationalised. However, Justice Briggs found no impediment to the creditors relinquishing their security under Indian law because of the engagement of a principle concerning public interest and favoured the submissions made by retired Indian Supreme Court judge Gopala Gowda at a hearing in December 2020 in this regard. “In my judgment the simple stance taken by Justice Gowda that Section 47 PIA 1920 is evidence of the ability of a secured creditor to relinquish the creditor's security is to be preferred," the ruling notes. The Indian banks, represented by the law firm TLT LLP and barrister Marcia Shekerdemian, were also granted costs in totality for the petition hearings, as the ‘overall successful' party in the case. "Dr Mallya should have been extradited by now. He was refused permission to go to the Supreme Court in May last year," Shekerdemian pointed out, in reference to one of Mallya's defence planks that the cases against him are 'politically motivated'. The 65-year-old businessman remains on bail in the UK while a 'confidential' legal matter, believed to be related to an asylum application, is resolved in connection with the unrelated extradition proceedings. (With inputs from agencies)

Vijay Mallya loses bankruptcy petition amendment High Court battle in UK 

India posted a record daily rise in coronavirus cases of 386,452 on Friday, while deaths from COVID-19 jumped by 3,498 over the last 24 hours, according to health ministry data.

India has added about 7.7 million cases to its total caseload since the end of February, when its second wave picked up steam, according to a Reuters tally. In contrast, it took India nearly six months to add the previous 7.7 million cases. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/covid-crisis-like-in-india-could-happen-anywhere-warns-who-381419">Also read | Covid crisis like in India could 'happen anywhere', warns WHO</a> 
 
The current rapid surge of COVID-19 cases has put immense pressure on the Indian health systems, already overburdened since the start of the pandemic.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
India reports 3,86,452 new <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/COVID19?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#COVID19</a> cases, 3498 deaths and 2,97,540 discharges in the last 24 hours, as per Union Health Ministry 
 
Total cases: 1,87,62,976 
Total recoveries: 1,53,84,418 
Death toll: 2,08,330 
Active cases: 31,70,228 
 
Total vaccination: 15,22,45,179 <a href="https://t.co/mRsifO2IMP">pic.twitter.com/mRsifO2IMP</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1387979313551527939?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 30, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

To make available additional hospital beds and critical equipment for India, WHO is procuring mobile field hospitals with a capacity of 20-30 beds, which could be set up in the most affected areas.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-11-indian-courts-pull-up-governments-381518/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The bed capacity at these field hospitals can be increased to a maximum of 50, if needed, without impacting infection prevention and control protocols, and water and sanitation, the WHO release had added.

(With inputs from agencies)

India posted a record daily rise in coronavirus cases of 386,452 on Friday, while deaths from COVID-19 jumped by 3,498 over the last 24 hours, according to health ministry data.

India posted a record daily rise in coronavirus cases of 386,452 on Friday, while deaths from COVID-19 jumped by 3,498 over the last 24 hours, according to health ministry data. India has added about 7.7 million cases to its total caseload since the end of February, when its second wave picked up steam, according to a Reuters tally. In contrast, it took India nearly six months to add the previous 7.7 million cases. Also read | Covid crisis like in India could 'happen anywhere', warns WHO The current rapid surge of COVID-19 cases has put immense pressure on the Indian health systems, already overburdened since the start of the pandemic. India reports 3,86,452 new #COVID19 cases, 3498 deaths and 2,97,540 discharges in the last 24 hours, as per Union Health Ministry Total cases: 1,87,62,976 Total recoveries: 1,53,84,418 Death toll: 2,08,330 Active cases: 31,70,228 Total vaccination: 15,22,45,179 pic.twitter.com/mRsifO2IMP — ANI (@ANI) April 30, 2021 × To make available additional hospital beds and critical equipment for India, WHO is procuring mobile field hospitals with a capacity of 20-30 beds, which could be set up in the most affected areas. The bed capacity at these field hospitals can be increased to a maximum of 50, if needed, without impacting infection prevention and control protocols, and water and sanitation, the WHO release had added. (With inputs from agencies)

India records biggest-ever surge of 386,452 COVID-19 cases, 3498 deaths in a day

Supreme Court of India said on Friday that high courts in India should avoid "off-the-cuff" remarks during hearings as they may have serious ramifications.

Supreme Court's advice came during hearings on COVID-19 related pleas. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the Centre and the Bihar government respectively said during the hearing that such remarks (from the high courts) gave impression as if authorities were doing nothing.

High courts of Madras and Delhi have been critical of Central government and various authorities for the way they have been handling Covid pandemic in India.

A bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud, hearing the suo motu case on COVID-19 management in the country, took note of the submissions of the Centre and Bihar government and cautioned restraint to High Courts.

"Even when we are criticising a judgement of a High Court, we do not say exactly what is in our heart and we exercise a degree of restraint. We would only expect that as freedom has been given to the High Courts to deal with these issues, certain of-the-cuff remarks, which are not necessary may be avoided," said the bench which also comprised Justices L Nageswara Rao and S Ravindra Bhat.

Government officials, including those who are COVID-19 infected, are working tirelessly to deal with the pandemic situation, the lawyers said.

Castigating officers on duty is "very demoralising", Kumar said.

The bench said judges also know that this is a new time where, every word said by them become part of social media.

"All we can say that we expect a degree of respect and restraint", the bench said.

The top court said particularly, in sensitive matters, it tended to exercise some caution and restraint.

"It is not because we are fearful of our remarks. Of course, we are independent. It is only because of the serious ramifications which off-the-cuff remarks about private citizens may have," Justice Chandrachud said.

"Sometimes judges make some observations to elicit proper response from lawyers, which should not be considered as those remarks against anyone," it said.

(With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court of India said on Friday that high courts in India should avoid "off-the-cuff" remarks during hearings as they may have serious ramifications. Supreme Court's advice came during hearings on COVID-19 related pleas.

Supreme Court of India said on Friday that high courts in India should avoid "off-the-cuff" remarks during hearings as they may have serious ramifications. Supreme Court's advice came during hearings on COVID-19 related pleas. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the Centre and the Bihar government respectively said during the hearing that such remarks (from the high courts) gave impression as if authorities were doing nothing. High courts of Madras and Delhi have been critical of Central government and various authorities for the way they have been handling Covid pandemic in India. A bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud, hearing the suo motu case on COVID-19 management in the country, took note of the submissions of the Centre and Bihar government and cautioned restraint to High Courts. "Even when we are criticising a judgement of a High Court, we do not say exactly what is in our heart and we exercise a degree of restraint. We would only expect that as freedom has been given to the High Courts to deal with these issues, certain of-the-cuff remarks, which are not necessary may be avoided," said the bench which also comprised Justices L Nageswara Rao and S Ravindra Bhat. Government officials, including those who are COVID-19 infected, are working tirelessly to deal with the pandemic situation, the lawyers said. Castigating officers on duty is "very demoralising", Kumar said. The bench said judges also know that this is a new time where, every word said by them become part of social media. "All we can say that we expect a degree of respect and restraint", the bench said. The top court said particularly, in sensitive matters, it tended to exercise some caution and restraint. "It is not because we are fearful of our remarks. Of course, we are independent. It is only because of the serious ramifications which off-the-cuff remarks about private citizens may have," Justice Chandrachud said. "Sometimes judges make some observations to elicit proper response from lawyers, which should not be considered as those remarks against anyone," it said. (With inputs from agencies)

High courts should avoid 'off-the-cuff' remarks, says Supreme Court during Covid hearing

Coronavirus crisis in India calls for introspection. There have been lapses And failures. Though it's true that nobody could have predicted such a big surge, India could have been better prepared.

It's also true that mass religious and political events could have been called off. A blame game in the middle of a crisis may not help. But that doesn't mean we don't hold governments to account.

Indian courts have now stepped in. They're making sure that those leading us do not become complacent. At least 11 high courts have pulled up various state governments and the Centre.

The Supreme Court of India has made it absolutely clear that the judiciary won't be a silent spectator in the current crisis.

Indian courts are making sure that the political class is held to account.

The high courts in Delhi, Allahabad, Patna, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, Nagpur, Aurangabad, Mumbai, Bangalore and Chennai are hearing petitions about the covid-19 situation in the respective states.

Their interventions and criticism of the govts responsible is both sharp and reassuring.

On April 27th, the Delhi High Court pulled up the Aam Aadmi Party government. saying its confidence was shaken over the handling of the crisis in the national capital.

"Set your house in order. Enough is enough. If you cannot manage it, tell us, then we will ask the central government to send their officers in and do it. We will ask them to take over. We cannot let people die like this,' said the court.

The high court has directed the Delhi government to address the alleged mismanagement in the distribution of medical Oxygen and ensure oxygen supply 'by all means necessary'

On April 19, The Allahabad High Court pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government for its approach in dealing with the rising cases.

"Those in power must shun the attitude of my way or no way. They should welcome suggestions from all quarters. We would be laughed at that we have enough money to spend on elections and very little to spend on public health,' the court said.

The court also ordered a lockdown in five major cities in the state but the order was stayed by a Supreme Court directive after the UP govt protested.

In West Bengal, which held a month-long election in the middle of the second wave, and will count votes on may 2nd, the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court has pulled up the Election Commission.

"The ECI is empowered to act, but what is it doing? Just passing circulars and leaving it to the people? Issuance of circulars and holding of meetings by themselves do not discharge the onerous responsibility of the ECI," said the court.

On April 16, the Gujarat High Court also took the state government for downplaying the severity of the crisis.

"Hiding the real picture, suppressing accurate data would generate more serious problems including fear, loss of trust and panic among the public,' said the court.

The court has directed the state govt to ensure its affidavits reflect the ground realities.

In Maharashtra, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has pulled up both the state and the centre for failing to comply with its order to supply 10,000 units of Remdesivir in the Vidarbha region.

"If you don't feel ashamed of yourself, we are feeling ashamed of being part of such a nasty society. You are neglecting and ignoring patients. We give you a solution, you do not follow it. You do not give us a solution. What absolute nonsense is going on here,' the court said.

'Absolute nonsense', were the exact words of Justices SB Shukre and SM Modak.

High courts in other states have also been unsparing in their remarks. High courts in Patna, Karnataka, Telangana and Chennai have all pulled up respective governments for their handling of the current crisis.

As for the Supreme Court of India, it first directed the Centre to submit a national Covid plan. Now it has pulled up the govt over disparity in vaccine prices, demanding that the rationale behind different prices for Centre &amp; states be explained. The apex court has also said it won't stop high courts from hearing petitions in their respective states adding that the judiciary wants to play a complementary role. And it can't be a silent spectator to what it called a 'national calamity'.

Coronavirus crisis in India calls for introspection. There have been lapses And failures. Though it's true that nobody could have predicted such a big surge, India could have been better prepared.

Coronavirus crisis in India calls for introspection. There have been lapses And failures. Though it's true that nobody could have predicted such a big surge, India could have been better prepared. It's also true that mass religious and political events could have been called off. A blame game in the middle of a crisis may not help. But that doesn't mean we don't hold governments to account. Indian courts have now stepped in. They're making sure that those leading us do not become complacent. At least 11 high courts have pulled up various state governments and the Centre. The Supreme Court of India has made it absolutely clear that the judiciary won't be a silent spectator in the current crisis. Indian courts are making sure that the political class is held to account. The high courts in Delhi, Allahabad, Patna, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, Nagpur, Aurangabad, Mumbai, Bangalore and Chennai are hearing petitions about the covid-19 situation in the respective states. Their interventions and criticism of the govts responsible is both sharp and reassuring. On April 27th, the Delhi High Court pulled up the Aam Aadmi Party government. saying its confidence was shaken over the handling of the crisis in the national capital. "Set your house in order. Enough is enough. If you cannot manage it, tell us, then we will ask the central government to send their officers in and do it. We will ask them to take over. We cannot let people die like this,' said the court. The high court has directed the Delhi government to address the alleged mismanagement in the distribution of medical Oxygen and ensure oxygen supply 'by all means necessary' On April 19, The Allahabad High Court pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government for its approach in dealing with the rising cases. "Those in power must shun the attitude of my way or no way. They should welcome suggestions from all quarters. We would be laughed at that we have enough money to spend on elections and very little to spend on public health,' the court said. The court also ordered a lockdown in five major cities in the state but the order was stayed by a Supreme Court directive after the UP govt protested. In West Bengal, which held a month-long election in the middle of the second wave, and will count votes on may 2nd, the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court has pulled up the Election Commission. "The ECI is empowered to act, but what is it doing? Just passing circulars and leaving it to the people? Issuance of circulars and holding of meetings by themselves do not discharge the onerous responsibility of the ECI," said the court. On April 16, the Gujarat High Court also took the state government for downplaying the severity of the crisis. "Hiding the real picture, suppressing accurate data would generate more serious problems including fear, loss of trust and panic among the public,' said the court. The court has directed the state govt to ensure its affidavits reflect the ground realities. In Maharashtra, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has pulled up both the state and the centre for failing to comply with its order to supply 10,000 units of Remdesivir in the Vidarbha region. "If you don't feel ashamed of yourself, we are feeling ashamed of being part of such a nasty society. You are neglecting and ignoring patients. We give you a solution, you do not follow it. You do not give us a solution. What absolute nonsense is going on here,' the court said. 'Absolute nonsense', were the exact words of Justices SB Shukre and SM Modak. High courts in other states have also been unsparing in their remarks. High courts in Patna, Karnataka, Telangana and Chennai have all pulled up respective governments for their handling of the current crisis. As for the Supreme Court of India, it first directed the Centre to submit a national Covid plan. Now it has pulled up the govt over disparity in vaccine prices, demanding that the rationale behind different prices for Centre & states be explained. The apex court has also said it won't stop high courts from hearing petitions in their respective states adding that the judiciary wants to play a complementary role. And it can't be a silent spectator to what it called a 'national calamity'.

Indian courts pull up governments over Covid crisis

2 High Courts in India recently delivered these controversial judgements: Groping without 'skin-to-skin' contact is not sexual assault, A minor Muslim girl can marry after attaining puberty. WION's Palki tells you why the legal system needs a reality check.

Gravitas: Why the legal system needs a reality check

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a Muslim girl who is less than 18 years old but has attained puberty is free to marry anyone as per the Muslim Personal Law.

A bench of Justice Alka Sarin gave the verdict relying on various court rulings and the article 195 in 'Principles of Mohammedan Law', an authoritative textbook by prominent Muslim personal law jurist Sir Dinshah Fardunji Mulla.

Quoting provisions of article 195 in Mulla's authoritative treatise on Muslim personal laws, the bench observed that a Muslim girl on attaining the age of puberty was competent to enter into a contract of marriage with a person of her choice.

Article 195 in the book explains the capacity (eligibility) for marriage under the Muslim Personal Law, the bench pointed out, adding that as per this provision, every Mohammedan (Muslim) of sound mind, who has attained puberty, may enter into a contract of marriage.

According to law the minimum age for marriage — is 18 years for girls and 21 for boys. This is laid down in two separate acts of the Indian parliament.

One, the special marriage act of 1954.

Second and the prohibition of child marriage act of 2006.

How then did the court recognise this marriage of a 17 year old?

Because it gave primacy to personal laws, the Muslim personal law says maturity and puberty are one and the same. So if a person has attained puberty — they are free to marry.

This puts the age of marriage at around 15 years. It's as if the last 150 years of social reforms never happened.

This is not an argument against personal laws in India. Though it's high time the country had a uniform civil code. But that's for the Parliament and the people of India to decide together.

But when courts uphold personal laws — at the expense of children's rights — questions must be asked.

Are the laws in tune with modern times? Are the Court's interpreting them with a progressive mindset? Most of the laws that we live by were framed decades back.

Times have changed, what was considered normal in the past -- is probably a crime today.

So the laws must keep up. Which means the lawmakers must keep up. Unfortunately -- in most cases -- they don't.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a Muslim girl who is less than 18 years old but has attained puberty is free to marry anyone as per the Muslim Personal Law.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a Muslim girl who is less than 18 years old but has attained puberty is free to marry anyone as per the Muslim Personal Law. A bench of Justice Alka Sarin gave the verdict relying on various court rulings and the article 195 in 'Principles of Mohammedan Law', an authoritative textbook by prominent Muslim personal law jurist Sir Dinshah Fardunji Mulla. Quoting provisions of article 195 in Mulla's authoritative treatise on Muslim personal laws, the bench observed that a Muslim girl on attaining the age of puberty was competent to enter into a contract of marriage with a person of her choice. Article 195 in the book explains the capacity (eligibility) for marriage under the Muslim Personal Law, the bench pointed out, adding that as per this provision, every Mohammedan (Muslim) of sound mind, who has attained puberty, may enter into a contract of marriage. According to law the minimum age for marriage — is 18 years for girls and 21 for boys. This is laid down in two separate acts of the Indian parliament. One, the special marriage act of 1954. Second and the prohibition of child marriage act of 2006. How then did the court recognise this marriage of a 17 year old? Because it gave primacy to personal laws, the Muslim personal law says maturity and puberty are one and the same. So if a person has attained puberty — they are free to marry. This puts the age of marriage at around 15 years. It's as if the last 150 years of social reforms never happened. This is not an argument against personal laws in India. Though it's high time the country had a uniform civil code. But that's for the Parliament and the people of India to decide together. But when courts uphold personal laws — at the expense of children's rights — questions must be asked. Are the laws in tune with modern times? Are the Court's interpreting them with a progressive mindset? Most of the laws that we live by were framed decades back. Times have changed, what was considered normal in the past -- is probably a crime today. So the laws must keep up. Which means the lawmakers must keep up. Unfortunately -- in most cases -- they don't. (With inputs from agencies)

On attaining puberty, Muslim girl can marry anyone: Why legal system needs a reality check

The Madras High Court has expressed apprehension about India’s over-dependence on ’hostile neighbor’ China, when it comes to the import of Active Pharmaceutical ingredients (API).

This observation was made on the grounds that it hinders the nation’s response to security and other breaches by the neighbor. APIs are the ingredients in the medicine that play the major role of acting upon the illness. While India, which is regarded a pioneer in pharmaceuticals, does not import medicines per se, the country imports APIs, which are the crucial ingredient in the drugs’ manufacture.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/mysterious-covid-19-vaccine-chinas-cry-of-help-for-friendship-334123">Also read|&nbsp;Mysterious COVID-19 vaccine: China's cry of help for friendship</a>

At one stage, even the National Security Advisor (NSA) has cautioned the Government of the danger to our national security on account of this excess import dependence from a single nation” the Court said. It is said that China is also the global leader in the production and export of APIs, which is enabled by government support and lower costs on various fronts.

The Court notes that the economic advantage of importing APIs from China has led to India losing its scientific-edge and self-reliance in APIs. It is said that China is able to sell their APIs to India at 25% of the cost that it would take to manufacture in India. “As a result, our country that had once built 99.7% self-reliance in APIs went on to import over 90% of its API requirements from China”, the Court said. “At one stage, even the National Security Advisor (‘NSA’) has cautioned the Government of the danger to our national security on account of this excess import dependence from a single nation” it added.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-to-join-covax-when-will-un-hold-china-responsible-for-its-actions-334138">Also read|&nbsp;China to join COVAX: When will UN hold China responsible for its actions?</a>

Fearsome prospects of Indian patients having to consume sub-standard drugs or go without medicines, in case of escalation of tensions with China were also mentioned by the Court, in view of the Galwan clashes.&nbsp;

The court made the observations while ordering that a five-member committee be set-up to ensure the enabling of a private company Vinkem Labs Ltd to become a global player that can bring in foreign exchange and also ensure India’s self-reliance in cancer drugs.

In an issued on September 30, 2020, the Court said that a committee must be formed within eight weeks to facilitate requirements of Vinkem Labs including fiscal and regulatory for R&amp;D, commercialization, industry development, regulatory compliances, technology infusion, exports, domestic supply and others.

The proposed committee is meant to have a member each from Union Ministry of Pharmaceuticals and Finance Ministry not below Joint Secretary rank, Secretary, Department of Pharmaceuticals, Government of Tamil Nadu, one member from Bank of India and National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) not below the rank of Senior General Manager and N.L.Rajah, the amicus curiae appointed by the court.

The court monitored Committee is also required to remove delays and difficulties, including funding requirements of Vinkem Labs with necessary recommendations to the banks.

The Madras High Court has expressed apprehension about India’s over-dependence on ’hostile neighbor’ China, when it comes to the import of Active Pharmaceutical ingredients (API).

The Madras High Court has expressed apprehension about India’s over-dependence on ’hostile neighbor’ China, when it comes to the import of Active Pharmaceutical ingredients (API). This observation was made on the grounds that it hinders the nation’s response to security and other breaches by the neighbor. APIs are the ingredients in the medicine that play the major role of acting upon the illness. While India, which is regarded a pioneer in pharmaceuticals, does not import medicines per se, the country imports APIs, which are the crucial ingredient in the drugs’ manufacture. Also read| Mysterious COVID-19 vaccine: China's cry of help for friendship At one stage, even the National Security Advisor (NSA) has cautioned the Government of the danger to our national security on account of this excess import dependence from a single nation” the Court said. It is said that China is also the global leader in the production and export of APIs, which is enabled by government support and lower costs on various fronts. The Court notes that the economic advantage of importing APIs from China has led to India losing its scientific-edge and self-reliance in APIs. It is said that China is able to sell their APIs to India at 25% of the cost that it would take to manufacture in India. “As a result, our country that had once built 99.7% self-reliance in APIs went on to import over 90% of its API requirements from China”, the Court said. “At one stage, even the National Security Advisor (‘NSA’) has cautioned the Government of the danger to our national security on account of this excess import dependence from a single nation” it added. Also read| China to join COVAX: When will UN hold China responsible for its actions? Fearsome prospects of Indian patients having to consume sub-standard drugs or go without medicines, in case of escalation of tensions with China were also mentioned by the Court, in view of the Galwan clashes. The court made the observations while ordering that a five-member committee be set-up to ensure the enabling of a private company Vinkem Labs Ltd to become a global player that can bring in foreign exchange and also ensure India’s self-reliance in cancer drugs. In an issued on September 30, 2020, the Court said that a committee must be formed within eight weeks to facilitate requirements of Vinkem Labs including fiscal and regulatory for R&D, commercialization, industry development, regulatory compliances, technology infusion, exports, domestic supply and others. The proposed committee is meant to have a member each from Union Ministry of Pharmaceuticals and Finance Ministry not below Joint Secretary rank, Secretary, Department of Pharmaceuticals, Government of Tamil Nadu, one member from Bank of India and National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) not below the rank of Senior General Manager and N.L.Rajah, the amicus curiae appointed by the court. The court monitored Committee is also required to remove delays and difficulties, including funding requirements of Vinkem Labs with necessary recommendations to the banks.

Madras High court raises concern over India’s over-dependence on Chinese pharma ingredients

A division bench of the Delhi High Court on Friday deferred to September 28 hearing on a petition filed by the Delhi government challenging a single-judge bench order imposing an interim stay on the reservation of 80 per cent ICU beds in a group of top private hospitals in the national capital exclusively for COVID-19 patients.

The division bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan listed the matter for further hearing on September 28.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/admitted-to-hospital-for-covid-19-delhi-deputy-cm-manish-sisodia-also-diagnosed-with-dengue-330037">Also read:&nbsp;Admitted to hospital for COVID-19, Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia also diagnosed with dengue</a>

The Delhi government, in a petition filed through additional standing counsel Sanjoy Ghose against the interim order dated September 22 passed by a single-judge bench, said that the bench has not appreciated the categoric submissions made on behalf of the appellant regarding the surge in the number of COVID-19 patients, and the dynamic efforts being undertaken by the appellant to tackle the ever-changing nature situation regarding healthcare and medical facilities in the NCT of Delhi, on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A single-judge bench had on Tuesday this week stayed the recent order passed by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal-led government instructing private hospitals in Delhi to reserve 80 per cent of ICU beds for COVID-19 patients, till the next date of hearing on a petition moved by the "Association of Healthcare Providers India".

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-reports-86052-new-cases-as-total-infections-near-6-million-mark-330100">Also read:&nbsp;India reports 86,052 new cases as total infections near 6 million-mark</a>

The petition filed before the single-judge through advocate Sanyam Khetarpal and Narita Yadav said that the order has been passed in an arbitrary, unfair and illegal manner without even realizing the difficulties that may be faced by the said private nursing homes and hospitals.

"Moreover, no consideration has been given to the fact that the non-COVID-19 patients may suffer fatal consequences owing to their prolonged or sudden illness and due to the non-availability of ICU/HDU beds they may not be able to endure the disease," said the petition filed by Association of Healthcare Providers India.

The plea had said that private hospitals routinely get patients with heart attacks, grievous injuries, acute pulmonary disorders, complex fractures, and even other conditions like cancer, transplant and cardiac patients which require urgent interventions and critical care.

"Reserving 80% beds in the ICU will deny urgent care to seriously ill patients, requiring vital surgical interventions and critical care. These beds, which may constitute 15 per cent to 20per cent of overall ICU bed capacity in some of the hospitals, are not usable for COVID-19 patients since very rarely does a COVID-19 patient of that age requires critical care," it had added.&nbsp;

A division bench of the Delhi High Court on Friday deferred to September 28 hearing on a petition filed by the Delhi government challenging a single-judge bench order imposing an interim stay on the reservation of 80 per cent ICU beds in a group of top private hospitals in the national capital exclusively for COVID-19 patients.

A division bench of the Delhi High Court on Friday deferred to September 28 hearing on a petition filed by the Delhi government challenging a single-judge bench order imposing an interim stay on the reservation of 80 per cent ICU beds in a group of top private hospitals in the national capital exclusively for COVID-19 patients. The division bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan listed the matter for further hearing on September 28. Also read: Admitted to hospital for COVID-19, Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia also diagnosed with dengue The Delhi government, in a petition filed through additional standing counsel Sanjoy Ghose against the interim order dated September 22 passed by a single-judge bench, said that the bench has not appreciated the categoric submissions made on behalf of the appellant regarding the surge in the number of COVID-19 patients, and the dynamic efforts being undertaken by the appellant to tackle the ever-changing nature situation regarding healthcare and medical facilities in the NCT of Delhi, on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. A single-judge bench had on Tuesday this week stayed the recent order passed by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal-led government instructing private hospitals in Delhi to reserve 80 per cent of ICU beds for COVID-19 patients, till the next date of hearing on a petition moved by the "Association of Healthcare Providers India". Also read: India reports 86,052 new cases as total infections near 6 million-mark The petition filed before the single-judge through advocate Sanyam Khetarpal and Narita Yadav said that the order has been passed in an arbitrary, unfair and illegal manner without even realizing the difficulties that may be faced by the said private nursing homes and hospitals. "Moreover, no consideration has been given to the fact that the non-COVID-19 patients may suffer fatal consequences owing to their prolonged or sudden illness and due to the non-availability of ICU/HDU beds they may not be able to endure the disease," said the petition filed by Association of Healthcare Providers India. The plea had said that private hospitals routinely get patients with heart attacks, grievous injuries, acute pulmonary disorders, complex fractures, and even other conditions like cancer, transplant and cardiac patients which require urgent interventions and critical care. "Reserving 80% beds in the ICU will deny urgent care to seriously ill patients, requiring vital surgical interventions and critical care. These beds, which may constitute 15 per cent to 20per cent of overall ICU bed capacity in some of the hospitals, are not usable for COVID-19 patients since very rarely does a COVID-19 patient of that age requires critical care," it had added.

HC defers Delhi govt's plea against interim stay on reservation of ICU beds in private hospitals

The Delhi High Court on Monday sought responses from the Centre and online video streaming platform Netflix on PNB scam accused Mehul Choksi's appeal against the dismissal of his plea to pre-screen the 'Bad Boy Billionaires' docuseries.

A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan issued notice to the Centre and Netflix and sought their stand by September 23 on Choksi's appeal.

Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, appearing for the PNB scam accused, said he was only seeking that the matter be remanded back to the single judge who had dismissed as not maintainable the plea to pre-screen the docuseries.

The single judge had on August 28 denied any relief to Choksi, saying a writ petition for enforcement of a private right was not maintainable.

The high court had said his remedy lies in a civil suit and granted him the liberty to raise the issue in a civil suit.

Choksi, the promoter of Gitanjali Gems, and his nephew, Nirav Modi, are accused in the Rs 13,500-crore Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud case.

Choksi left the country last year and was granted citizenship of Antigua and Barbuda.

The documentary, which was scheduled for release in India on September 2, was promoted by Netflix as: "This investigative docuseries explores the greed, fraud and corruption that built up - and ultimately brought down - India's most infamous tycoons".

The Delhi High Court on Monday sought responses from the Centre and online video streaming platform Netflix on PNB scam accused Mehul Choksi's appeal against the dismissal of his plea to pre-screen the 'Bad Boy Billionaires' docuseries.

The Delhi High Court on Monday sought responses from the Centre and online video streaming platform Netflix on PNB scam accused Mehul Choksi's appeal against the dismissal of his plea to pre-screen the 'Bad Boy Billionaires' docuseries. A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan issued notice to the Centre and Netflix and sought their stand by September 23 on Choksi's appeal. Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, appearing for the PNB scam accused, said he was only seeking that the matter be remanded back to the single judge who had dismissed as not maintainable the plea to pre-screen the docuseries. The single judge had on August 28 denied any relief to Choksi, saying a writ petition for enforcement of a private right was not maintainable. The high court had said his remedy lies in a civil suit and granted him the liberty to raise the issue in a civil suit. Choksi, the promoter of Gitanjali Gems, and his nephew, Nirav Modi, are accused in the Rs 13,500-crore Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud case. Choksi left the country last year and was granted citizenship of Antigua and Barbuda. The documentary, which was scheduled for release in India on September 2, was promoted by Netflix as: "This investigative docuseries explores the greed, fraud and corruption that built up - and ultimately brought down - India's most infamous tycoons".

High Court seeks Centre, Netflix response to Mehul Choksi's plea on 'Bad Boy Billionaires' docuseries

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the Delhi government to take steps to waive off the school tuition fee amid the ongoing coronavirus-induced lockdown.

A bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan also expressed displeasure with the petitioner and counsel and asked why did you not apprised the court that a similar matter was already dismissed by the same court.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/we-are-shifting-from-burden-of-school-bag-to-boon-of-learning-pm-modi-317503">Also read|&nbsp;We are shifting from burden of school bag to boon of learning: PM Modi</a>

"This is clear misconduct," the bench said, after which advocate N Pradeep Sharma sought an apology from the High Court and withdrew the PIL as the court was not convinced by his arguments.

The plea, filed by one Naresh Kumar, prayed for the interpretation of Force Majeure clauses in the present pandemic situation and sought directions to the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT Delhi to take steps to waver off the school tuition fee.

According to the petition, the impact of COVID-19 is building by the day, supply chains are being significantly disrupted and businesses` rights and obligations under contracts are coming into sharp focus.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/from-4-years-bed-degree-to-removing-mphil-highlights-of-national-education-policy-2020-316865">Also read|&nbsp;From 4 years B.Ed. degree to removing M.Phil: Highlights of National Education Policy 2020</a>

The plea said that private school administrations have been demanding school fee and other charges without rendering any services. It said that the school admission form does not have any clause that in case of an adverse situation, the school would charge tuition fees for providing online classes.

"The students are facing several side effects and such online classes offered by schools have other medical and psychological implications, which is against the concept of school education," the plea said.

"The schools are duty-bound to follow and abide the terms and conditions which are a part of school prospectus and if there is no Force Majeure clause in the school prospectus, demanding of tuition fee, without providing the actual education, is a violation of law in terms of a contract and also against the principle of natural justice," it added.

The plea said that it would not be out of the question to mention that the school prospectus does not contain any clause with respect to a pandemic or like situation and further that in such a condition, the school would provide online classes and charge tuition fees for the same.It also said that the entire student community is facing a lot of problems to gain knowledge through the online education system.

"Some homework and class tests are required to be undertaken under the guidance of trained teachers so as to achieve, through the online way of teaching. It would be important to mention that private schools are either being run by the Society or trust and are not doing any social service to society. Even otherwise, the school is a service provider and thus is covered under the Consumer Act also," the plea said.

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the Delhi government to take steps to waive off the school tuition fee amid the ongoing coronavirus-induced lockdown.

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the Delhi government to take steps to waive off the school tuition fee amid the ongoing coronavirus-induced lockdown. A bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan also expressed displeasure with the petitioner and counsel and asked why did you not apprised the court that a similar matter was already dismissed by the same court. Also read| We are shifting from burden of school bag to boon of learning: PM Modi "This is clear misconduct," the bench said, after which advocate N Pradeep Sharma sought an apology from the High Court and withdrew the PIL as the court was not convinced by his arguments. The plea, filed by one Naresh Kumar, prayed for the interpretation of Force Majeure clauses in the present pandemic situation and sought directions to the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT Delhi to take steps to waver off the school tuition fee. According to the petition, the impact of COVID-19 is building by the day, supply chains are being significantly disrupted and businesses` rights and obligations under contracts are coming into sharp focus. Also read| From 4 years B.Ed. degree to removing M.Phil: Highlights of National Education Policy 2020 The plea said that private school administrations have been demanding school fee and other charges without rendering any services. It said that the school admission form does not have any clause that in case of an adverse situation, the school would charge tuition fees for providing online classes. "The students are facing several side effects and such online classes offered by schools have other medical and psychological implications, which is against the concept of school education," the plea said. "The schools are duty-bound to follow and abide the terms and conditions which are a part of school prospectus and if there is no Force Majeure clause in the school prospectus, demanding of tuition fee, without providing the actual education, is a violation of law in terms of a contract and also against the principle of natural justice," it added. The plea said that it would not be out of the question to mention that the school prospectus does not contain any clause with respect to a pandemic or like situation and further that in such a condition, the school would provide online classes and charge tuition fees for the same.It also said that the entire student community is facing a lot of problems to gain knowledge through the online education system. "Some homework and class tests are required to be undertaken under the guidance of trained teachers so as to achieve, through the online way of teaching. It would be important to mention that private schools are either being run by the Society or trust and are not doing any social service to society. Even otherwise, the school is a service provider and thus is covered under the Consumer Act also," the plea said.

COVID-19: Delhi HC refuses to entertain PIL seeking directions to waive off school tuition fee

The Madras High Court on Tuesday orally asked the Tamil Nadu government reason for not allowing Rajiv Gandhi assassination convicts, Nalini and her husband Sriharan, to make video calls to their relatives in Sri Lanka when it had already decided to release her and six others.

A bench of Justice N Kirubakarn and Justice R Hemalatha observed during the hearing of a petition by Nalini's mother, seeking a direction to permit her daughter to speak to her mother-in-law in Sri Lanka and sister-in-law in London daily for ten minutes.

Making clear they were not in support of the convicts, the judges wondered as to why the prison authorities were refusing to grant the permission when the state has taken a stand to release all the seven convicts in the case.

It was referring to the decision of the state cabinet for premature release of the seven convicts, which is awaiting approval from the state Governor.

Public Prosecutor A Natarajan informed the court that Nalini cannot be allowed to make video calls as there was no such provision in rules for contacting any person in any foreign country.

Since the offence committed by the life convicts had international ramification and given their overseas contacts with banned outfits, there was no guarantee that the convicts would use this facility for a personal and family affair, he submitted.

The bench then adjourned the hearing to Wednesday with a direction to the prosecutor to inform the court the clear stand of the prison authorities.

Earlier, in a counter-affidavit, the state police had said there was no provision either in the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules or in government orders to allow a prisoner to make a video call or even voice call to 
any person in any foreign country.

The official noted that the issue involving foreign countries falls within the domain of Union Ministry for External Affairs, and the state government or the prison authorities cannot take any unilateral decision.

Besides Nalini and her husband, the others convicted in the case are A G Perarivalan, Santhan, Jayakumar, Ravichandran and Robert Pyas.

All are serving life imprisonment for their role in the assassination of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi on May 21, 1991, by an LTTE suicide-bomber at nearby Sriperumbudur.

They were initially sentenced to death, but later the punishment was commuted to life imprisonment.

The Madras High Court on Tuesday orally asked the Tamil Nadu government reason for not allowing Rajiv Gandhi assassination convicts, Nalini and her husband Sriharan, to make video calls to their relatives in Sri Lanka when it had already decided to release her and six others.

The Madras High Court on Tuesday orally asked the Tamil Nadu government reason for not allowing Rajiv Gandhi assassination convicts, Nalini and her husband Sriharan, to make video calls to their relatives in Sri Lanka when it had already decided to release her and six others. A bench of Justice N Kirubakarn and Justice R Hemalatha observed during the hearing of a petition by Nalini's mother, seeking a direction to permit her daughter to speak to her mother-in-law in Sri Lanka and sister-in-law in London daily for ten minutes. Making clear they were not in support of the convicts, the judges wondered as to why the prison authorities were refusing to grant the permission when the state has taken a stand to release all the seven convicts in the case. It was referring to the decision of the state cabinet for premature release of the seven convicts, which is awaiting approval from the state Governor. Public Prosecutor A Natarajan informed the court that Nalini cannot be allowed to make video calls as there was no such provision in rules for contacting any person in any foreign country. Since the offence committed by the life convicts had international ramification and given their overseas contacts with banned outfits, there was no guarantee that the convicts would use this facility for a personal and family affair, he submitted. The bench then adjourned the hearing to Wednesday with a direction to the prosecutor to inform the court the clear stand of the prison authorities. Earlier, in a counter-affidavit, the state police had said there was no provision either in the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules or in government orders to allow a prisoner to make a video call or even voice call to any person in any foreign country. The official noted that the issue involving foreign countries falls within the domain of Union Ministry for External Affairs, and the state government or the prison authorities cannot take any unilateral decision. Besides Nalini and her husband, the others convicted in the case are A G Perarivalan, Santhan, Jayakumar, Ravichandran and Robert Pyas. All are serving life imprisonment for their role in the assassination of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi on May 21, 1991, by an LTTE suicide-bomber at nearby Sriperumbudur. They were initially sentenced to death, but later the punishment was commuted to life imprisonment.

Why Rajiv Gandhi case convicts can't video call their relatives: Court asks state 

high-court

High Court, News on High Court, stories on High Court, articles on High Court, High Court stories at Wion, High Court news, High Court latest news