New Delhi, Apr 21 () The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a plea seeking directions to the Centre, states and Union Territories for taking immediate steps to relax all medical expenses of non-Covid-19 ailments during the coronavirus pandemic.A bench of Justices N V Ramana, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and B R Gavai dismissed the plea filed by lawyer Sourjya Das in which he said that due to the nationwide lockdown to prevent the spread of the virus, the means of livelihood and businesses of people have come to a halt resulting in financial crisis in numerous families. The top court also rejected another petition which sought making masks and sanitizers free of Goods and Services Tax (GST) to make it cheaper at the time of coronavirus. Das in his petition, said, "On perusal of the steps taken by the respondents (Centre, States and UTs), it is valid to infer that the respondents have not taken steps to relax/reduce non-Covid-19 related healthcare/treatment expenses during the Covid-19 outbreak. He submitted that such omission on the part of the respondents is a direct infringement of the 'right to life' under Article 21 of the Constitution, of the members of the public or the citizens of India". The plea said following halt in means of livelihood and income, people are spending out of their savings for food and shelter in daily life and the restrictions have hampered life in such a way that no one knows when things will get back to normal. The advocate said it needs to be considered that at this time, several people require non-covid-19 related medical treatment services like chemotherapy, emergency transplants, colonoscopy, various tests and other various treatments. "(Thus), it is of paramount importance that non-Covid-19 related medical treatment expenses / fees are relaxed / reduced by the respondents to help the citizens of India to healthily cope with this world health pandemic with hope and dignity and with no fear of financial crisis in case a prescribed / emergency medical treatment had to be undergone by a member of the public," the plea said.The petitioner had sought directions to Centre, all states and Union Territories to immediately issue orders to private hospitals / laboratories / nursing homes / clinics to relax / reduce non-covid-19 related medical healthcare treatment services.The petition had also sought stay on all pending medical or healthcare bills of any patient till action is taken by the Centre, States and UTs. MNL ABA SJK RKS MNL RKSRKS

SC dismisses plea seeking relaxing of medical expenses for non-Covid-19 treatment

New Delhi, Apr 30 () The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain pleas filed by lawyers associations of the apex court which sought directions to the Centre for formulating a scheme to support advocates and other professionals in paying their office rent during the COVID-19 lockdown. The top court said that prayers in the PILs filed by Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and lawyers of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), are unreasonable and "no special consideration can be granted to the lawyers". A bench of Justices N V Ramana, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and B R Gavai dismissed the petition and granted liberty to senior advocate Kailash Vasudeva, appearing for SCBA to withdraw the plea. During the hearing Vasudeva said they were not saying rent should not be charged but the non-payment of rent should not be made a ground for eviction during the lockdown. The bench shot back, "tomorrow engineers will come, architects will come. How can we give special consideration to lawyers? This is unreasonable for us to do. There may be old ladies, aged persons as landlords. How can we say this?" Vasudeva said there are high density areas and lawyers may lose their office spaces due to non-payment of rents during lockdown period. The bench said it would not enter into this issue as "lawyers are not entitled for any special consideration". The senior advocate sought liberty of the court to withdraw the petition saying he would then make a representation to the government. The SCBA had on April 22, filed an intervention application in a PIL filed by Aljo K Joseph, member of Supreme Court Advocate on Record Association (SCAORA), seeking direction to the Centre for formulating a scheme to support advocates and other professionals in paying their office rent during the COVID-19 lockdown. The PIL filed by Joseph through advocate Sachin Sharma contends that due to the nationwide lockdown to prevent the spread of coronavirus, they are not able to practice and make any money. "Since there is no financial protection given to lawyers and other professionals by the government of India, the present petition has been filed to urge grievances and hardship caused to the lawyers and professionals in this country due to the COVID-19 and unavoidable lockdown pursuant to the epidemic situation in India," the plea has said. It has said that the Centre declared the lockdown without any consultation with any of the professional associations and no specific steps have been taken by it to extend any help to support working professionals. The plea has sought directions to the Centre to formulate an appropriate scheme to support advocates and other professionals in the country in paying their rent exclusively for the professional premises used for practice of the professions or office purpose. MNL ABA SJK RKS MNL RKSRKS

SC refuses to entertain plea for govt scheme for payment of office rent during lockdown

New Delhi, Jun 26 () The Supreme Court Friday dismissed the anticipatory bail pleas of DHFL promoters Dheeraj Wadhawan and Kapil Wadhawan in a money laundering case of Yes Bank being probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The Wadhawans, now arrested, have challenged the Bombay High Court's May 12 order rejecting their plea for pre-arrest bail. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and B R Gavai dismissed a batch of four pleas after senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Wadhawans, said that he was not pressing his prayer for relief. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED said that both the accused have been arrested and hence their plea for anticipatory bail becomes infructous. The bench dismissed the pleas as withdrawn. The high court had refused to grant pre-arrest bail to DHFL promoters, noting that their custodial interrogation was required to unearth the conspiracy and modus operandi in the multi-crore scam. The Wadhawans are in jail after being earlier arrested by the CBI in a separate case related to the Yes Bank scam. They had moved the high court for anticipatory bail in the money laundering case and another case pertaining to alleged irregularities in the investment of employees' provident fund of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd (UPPCL). The high court had noted in its order that the applicants were not co-operating with the process of law and that the ED had issued several summonses to both Kapil and Dheeraj seeking their presence for questioning in the cases. The court said although the Wadhawans responded to the summonses and notices issued to them by the ED, they evaded investigation by not appearing before the agency. The response to the summonses speaks of apathetic and an indifferent approach. The lackadaisical approach of the applicants can be well noted in their response to the prosecuting agency, the court had said. Wadhawans' counsel had contended before the high court that no case has been made out for money laundering and the transactions in question were made in normal course of business. They had argued that there was no case for any arrest or arrest warrant at this stage for his clients in the midst of the COVID-19 lockdown in a matter of financial nature which is being investigated for the last six months. The Wadhawans have claimed they have been made "scapegoat of political quandary" in the state. The court, however, refused to accept the excuse of the COVID-19 pandemic and had said this shall not deter the ED from investigating a serious offence of money laundering which has shaken the economy of this country. Dheeraj and Kapil Wadhawan were arrested in April by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with the Yes Bank scam. According to the CBI FIR, the scam started taking shape between April and June 2018 when Yes Bank invested Rs 3,700 crore in short-term debentures of the scam-hit DHFL. In return, the Wadhawans allegedly "paid kickbacks of Rs 600 crore" to former Yes Bank CEO Rana Kapoor and his family members in the form of loans to DoIT Urban Ventures (India) Pvt Ltd held by the wife and daughters of Kapoor, the CBI has claimed. MNL ABA SJK SA

SC dismisses anticipatory bail plea of DHFL promoters in Yes Bank money laundering case

New Delhi, Jul 15 () The Supreme Court Wednesday asked the Jammu and Kashmir administration to explain the basis for detaining high court's bar leader Mian Abdul Qayoom who has challenged his detention under Public Safety Act (PSA) since August 7 last year. The top court asked it to take into consideration various aspects including Qayoom's age, expiry of detention period and the COVID-19 pandemic. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Indu Malhotra posted the matter for July 23 after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for J-K, said that he needs 10 days time to consider various aspects. "We want to know on what basis you (J-K administration) would like to detain him in Delhi's Tihar Jail. Moreover, his detention as per order has already expired," the bench said. At the outset, Mehta said he had not received the copy of the plea and sought time to reply to it. Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for Qayoom, said the detention order was for a limited period, for around one year. The bench said that was the reason it has issued notice on the plea during the last date of hearing. Dave replied that he understands why the Solicitor General was uncomfortable and complained that the present matter was not listed despite specific directions of the court. Justice Kaul told Mehta that firstly his detention period has expired and secondly his ideology remains the same. Dave pointed out that Qayoom is 73 years old and should not be kept in Tihar jail. "In the current scenario of COVID-19 would you like to keep this petition pending," the bench told Mehta, who said that Qayoom's ideology remained the same. The bench said it understands all these issues but sometimes there are compulsions which need to be complied with. It told Mehta that he should respond by next date considering Qayoom's age, expiry of his detention order and the COVID-19 times. On June 26, the top court had issued notice to the J-K administration and sought its reply on Qayoom's plea challenging his detention order. Qayoom has also sought a direction to shift him from Tihar jail here to central jail in Srinagar on medical ground. He has challenged the May 28 order of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court rejecting his plea against his prolonged "illegal detention" under the PSA in jails outside the UT. He said he is a Senior Advocate with more than 40 years' standing at the Bar and has served as President of the J&amp;K High Court Bar Association for many terms, including from 2014 till the present day. Qayoom said he was detained on the intervening night of August 4th and 5th, 2019, under the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter, an order of detention under the PSA was passed against him on August 7, 2019. He said that on August 8 he was taken to Central Jail, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, without any prior notice of intimation, where he was kept in solitary confinement. He said the high court's May 28 order is ex facie unsustainable in law as it is premised on "stale, irrelevant, remote, vague, imprecise and deficient" grounds of detention. "The impugned judgment and order concluded that most of the grounds in the detention order "are somewhat clumsy" which implies that the High Court too found them wanting. Placing reliance on the doctrine of severability as enunciated by this Court in Gautam Jain versus Union of India...the High Court then proceeds to uphold the detention order solely on one ground," his appeal said. He said the high court makes it abundantly clear that the detention order has been upheld solely on one ground -- the four FIRs dating back to 2008 and 2010, as enumerated in the detention order. "These FIRs are stale, irrelevant and have no proximate, pertinent or live link to the present, and are thus superfluous and extraneous to the satisfaction required in law qua the tendency or propensity to act in a manner prejudicial to public order. Pertinently, even in the said decade old 4 FIRs, the Petitioner was neither arrested, nor any charge sheet ever filed by the police against the Petitioner," he added in his plea. Qayoom said he had already been detained in 2010 on the basis of the said FIRs under the PSA, and the said detention was subsequently revoked. "Thus, the same FIRs cannot be used to pass another order of detention under the PSA, as held by this Hon'ble Court…," his plea said. Qayoom said he is suffering from serious health ailments and is at a high-risk vulnerability for COVID-19 due to his co-morbid conditions. "The Petitioner has numerous serious medical conditions for which he has been receiving treatment for the last 25 years under the care and supervision of his doctors in Srinagar, Kashmir. The Petitioner is also dependent on his family for ensuring the regular and daily intake of medicines and regular injections," he added. As an interim prayer, he sought his transfer to Central Jail, Srinagar, during the pendency of the present petition, ensuring that all necessary medical precautions are taken qua COVID-19. MNL ABA SJK SA

SC asks J-K admin to explain detaining bar leader after expiry of order under PSA

New Delhi, May 8 () The Centre on Friday assured the Supreme Court that appropriate measures will be taken by it to deal with incidents of harassment and racial discrimination meted out to the people of North-Eastern region over their physical features and wrongly mistaking them for Chinese.An activist has moved the top court pointing out alleged racial attacks on people of North-Eastern region like spitting on them, evictions from their homes, termination from their jobs, isolating them in the hospital along with other corona infected patients and name calling of racial slurs in various parts of the country. A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and B R Gavai, which took up the matter through video conferencing, disposed of the matter after recording the statement of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Centre that appropriate steps will be taken by the government urgently.Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for petitioner Alana Golmei, pointed out to various reports of racial discrimination and attacks on people of North Eastern region.He said that people of North-Eastern are facing difficulties due to these types of incidents and Centre should take urgent steps to allay the apprehensions. The Solicitor General said that there is already a dedicated helpline to address the grievances of North-East people.Gonsalves responded that the said helpline and the website is not been working or responding as a result the people from North-Eastern (NE) region have been facing difficulties and alleged racial attacks.Taking note of the submissions, the bench said, "Be that as it may, the solicitor general has submitted that the material which has pointed out in the writ petition shall be attended to and appropriate measures be taken by the Government to dispel the apprehensions of the petitioners as raised in the writ petition on an urgent basis. Taking note of above statement of Solicitor General, the petition is disposed of".The plea filed through advocate Satya Mitra said, "When the lockdown was imposed on account of COVID 19, beatings of, spitting on, and a whole spectrum of acts of discrimination and violence on people of the Northeast took place. Across the country the public identified of the people of the NE with China and automatically presumed that they were carriers of the virus and subjected them to merciless harassment".It said that assuming people from the Northeast are automatic carriers of the virus, the landlords have begun evicting persons from their rented apartments during the lockdown and they have no-where to go.The plea said that media reports have pointed out that persons from the NE who are asymptomatic and have no illness whatsoever have been forcibly quarantine along with persons suffering from the virus.It sought directions to Centre and particularly to the police force in all the States and UT's in India to conduct an immediate investigation by a senior officer into the crimes reported and prosecutes the offenders expeditiously in accordance with law.The plea, besides seeking various reliefs also sought direction to Centre and States to ensure that people of North East are not forcibly evicted from rented accommodations during the lockdown period and they should not be denied rations. MNL ABA SJK RKS MNL RKSRKS

Coronavirus: Centre assures SC of appropriate steps to deal with harassment of NE people

New Delhi, May 8 () The Supreme Court Friday asked states to consider non-direct contact or online sales and home delivery of liquor during the lockdown period to prevent the spread of coronavirus on account of crowding at the shops. A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and B R Gavai, which took up the matter through video conferencing, disposed of the plea challenging the guidelines issued by Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on May 1, allowing sales of liquor through direct contact sales during the lockdown period."The bench directed that States may consider allowing non-direct contact sales or online sales or home delivery of liquor during these times," advocate Sai Deepak, appearing for petitioner Guruswamy Nataraj said after the hearing.During the hearing, he argued that there are 70,000 liquor vends across the country and over five crore people have till now purchased liquor from these shops.He said that due to social distancing norms not being followed at the liquor vends and shops, there has been rise in Covid-19 cases.Deepak contended that the results, which have been achieved in over a month-long nationwide lockdown will be nullified as the coronavirus graph, which was earlier flattening, is now showing a sharp rise.He sought issuance of fresh MHA guidelines or directions for prohibition of sale of liquor at vends and shops through direct contact during the lockdown period or till the National Disaster Management Authority announces India to be Covid-19 free.To this, the bench said that discussion is already going on for allowing online sale of liquor or its home delivery.Deepak said he only wanted that life of a common man should not be affected due to this direct sale from vends and MHA should issue clarificatory guidelines and states should abide by it. The bench then directed the state to consider online sales or home delivery of liquor during the lockdown period and disposed of the matter. On May 1, the MHA has issued fresh guidelines while announcing a "limited" lockdown which includes suspension of air, train and inter-state road travel for two more weeks from May 4 across the country, but some activities was allowed after classifications of districts into 'Red', 'Orange' and 'Green' zones based on COVID-19 risk profiling.According to the health ministry, there are 130 'Red' zones in the country with maximum of 19 in Uttar Pradesh, followed by 14 in Maharashtra in the country. The number of 'Orange' Zone is 284 and 'Green' is 319. All the districts of the national capital have been put under 'Red' zone.As per the new guidelines, sale of liquor, paan, tobacco to be allowed after ensuring minimum six-feet social distancing; not over 5 persons at one time at shop. These shops should not be located in markets and malls in urban areas.However, consumption of liquor, paan, gutka, tobacco etc., is not allowed in public places during lockdown. MNL ABA SJK SA

SC asks states to consider online sales, home delivery of liquor

New Delhi, Apr 21 () The Supreme Court Tuesday asked the Centre to consider the contents of a PIL which has sought direction to central as well as the state governments to "jointly and severally" ensure payments of minimum wages to all migrant workers who are suffering during the lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A bench comprising Justices N V Ramana, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and B R Gavai, through video conferencing, was hearing the PIL filed by activists Harsh Mander and Anjali Bhardwaj seeking enforcement of fundamental right to life for migrant workers and payment of wages to them as they have allegedly been left without work or food following the lockdown. "This Petition is filed...seeking inter alia, to direct Central Government and the State Government to jointly and severally ensure payments of wages/minimum wages to all the migrant workers within a week," the bench noted in its order. The bench took into consideration the materials and the contentions of lawyer Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the activists, and said, "We call upon the respondent-Union of India to look into such material and take such steps as it finds fit to resolve the issues raised in the petition". It disposed of the PIL. Bhushan said the PIL is seeking a direction to the Centre and states to "jointly and severally" ensure payments of minimum wages to all migrant workers within a week and alleged that despite governmental measures, thousands of labourers still lack access to basic amenities. He said that studies conducted by NGOs indicate that there are several areas where the aid is not reaching to the migrant workers. The law officer, referring to the status report, submitted that various measures are in place to address the issues concerning the migrant workers and helpline number has been provided to report on the implementation at the ground level.He said that whenever any complaint with regard to food and other things is received, the authorities take action immediately. Bhushan, on the other hand, said that a study has been conducted on many such workers and around 96 per cent has not received ration from the government and they have not been paid any money . The law officer said many NGOs have been helping poor people during the need of this hour along with the government and asked cannot the petitioners help such workers in any other way besides filing PILs. Bhushan said there were more than four crore migrant workers in the country and 15 lakhs of them have been put in crowded shelter homes and it made mockery of the system. The government has recognised the need for payment to these workers by asking the private employers to pay their workers, but most of the employers do no have have money to pay. The PIL has sought enforcement of fundamental right to life for migrant workers and payment of wages to them as they have been left without work or food following the nationwide lockdown due to coronavirus pandemic. The plea said that fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution needs to be enforced for migrant workers who are severely affected by the lockdown ordered by the government on March 24. SJK ABA MNL SA

SC asks Centre to consider PIL seeking minimum wages for migrant workers during lockdown

New Delhi, Apr 7 () The Centre informed the Supreme Court on Tuesday that a settlement has been reached between Karnataka and Kerala on lifting the blockade of border roads by the former and parameters for passage of patients for urgent medical treatment at the interstate border have been formulated. A bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Deepak Gupta was informed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, that the dispute between both the states on the blockade of roads following the coronavirus pandemic has been resolved. He said a meeting of Union home secretary with the Chief secretaries of both Karnataka and Kerala has been held in compliance with the April 3 order of apex court and agreement has been arrived on the parameters for passage of patients for medical treatment at Talapadi border. The bench said that then it can dispose of a batch of pleas including that of an appeal filed by Karnataka government against the April 1, order of Kerala High Court on the border issue.On Monday, the Kerala government in its affidavit told the top court that Karnataka's blocking National Highways and border roads due to coronavirus, preventing people's access to medical treatment and movement of essential goods, is violative of fundamental rights of the Citizens. It had said eight lives have been lost till date on account of the blockade of border roads by Karnataka and one person had died after an appeal was filed by Karnataka government in apex court against the High Court order for opening of the borders. Kerala said that the Union government, under whom the National Highway fall, is duty bound to issue direction to Karnataka to remove such blockade for transporting patients requiring medical attention as well as essential goods to Kerala. The top court on April 3 asked the Kerala government to not to precipitate the issue of opening of borders till further hearing while asking the Chief Secretaries of both the states to hold discussions with Union Health Secretary for amicable settlement of the issue and decide on parameters to be maintained in case of health emergencies. The Karnataka government's plea filed by advocate Shubhranshu Padhi said, "The issue involved in the present SLP (special leave petition) is with regard to the closure of a road between the State of Karnataka and State of Kerala in order to combat the spread of the pandemic COVID-19...from the bordering Districts of the States." The plea said the order of the Kerala High Court has been passed wholly without any jurisdiction and is thus liable to be set aside. The state government said that Karnataka has locked down its borders in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19 except the movement of essential commodities. "The State of Karnataka had specifically closed the Makutta Check post on the Mysore-Virajepat-Kannur highway. However, the High Court vide the Impugned Order has directed Central Government to intervene and remove the closure on the said road," it said. The high court on April 1 gave the order on a PIL seeking directions for opening of the roads connecting Kasaragod in Kerala and Mangaluru in Karnataka, which had been closed by Karnataka in view of the lockdown to check the COVID-19 outbreak. The court had said the national highways come under the administrative jurisdiction of the central government and that the provisions of the National Highways Act clearly provide for the maintenance of such highways by it. The arterial roads that connect Mangaluru in Karnataka, to Kasaragod in Kerala were part of the National Highway network and it is therefore the duty of the Central Government to ensure that the said roads are kept free of blockades, the court had said. MNL ABA SJK SA

Agreement reached between K'taka, Kerala on opening border roads, Centre tells SC

New Delhi, Apr 30 () The Supreme Court Thursday refused to pass any direction on changing treatment guidelines for seriously ill COVID-19 patients who are receiving a combination of anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and antibiotic azithromycin (AZM) saying that it is not an expert on the matter.A bench of Justices N V Ramana, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and B R Gavai asked the plea filed by an NGO, 'People for Better Treatment' (PBT), to be considered as representation to the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR).During the hearing, Ohio-based Indian origin doctor and PBT President Kunal Saha said he has not challenged the treatment line for Covid-19 per se but the use of HCQ and AZM combination has side effects and people are dying due to it.Saha, appearing through video conferencing, said that a serious warning about the side effects has been issued by an American heart institute, which should be considered. The bench said that as of now there are no medicines for the treatment of Covid-19 and doctors are trying different ways.It said the type of treatment guidelines to be followed is up to the doctors to decide as courts are not experts and it cannot decide what type of treatment can be prescribed. The bench asked Saha to take his petition as representation to the ICMR, which can examine its suggestions.Saha said he was not saying whether a particular line of treatment is correct or not, but was asking for precautions as people are dying of side effects. He said there should be an informed consent as a patient has a right to know that there is a risk involved in a particular line of treatment.Shah contended that the doctors should explain to the patient about the risk involved in the particular line of treatment and take his or her consent. The bench said that court cannot ask for providing particular line of treatment and asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Centre, to provide the petition to ICMR which shall look into the suggestions. The PIL said the use of HCQ and AZM was recommended for the most serious COVID-19 patients by the Health Ministry based primarily on anecdotal evidence and not as a specific therapy.The petition has also sought directions for taking necessary steps for immediate implementation of all the specific preventive measures recommended in hospitals across India to protect the lives of COVID-19 patients who are being treated with HCQ and AZM.It said the Ministry of Health &amp; Family Welfare published comprehensive 'Revised Guidelines on Clinical Management of COVID-19' on the website on March 31 that included detailed description of how to test, diagnose and treat COVID-19 patients."Ministry of Health has specifically advised that although no specific anti-viral medicines are available against COVID-19, a combination of HCQ and AZM may be administered as an 'off-label' use to the most seriously ill COVID-19 patients who are in ICU," it said.Many doctors have started using the combination to treat their most critically ill COVID-19 ICU patients across India following the ministry's guidelines, it said."Off-label use of HCQ and AZM in acutely ill COVID-19 patients has been highly controversial from the very beginning. However, both HCQ and AZM were studied extensively prior to FDA approval for their use in indicated medical conditions and both drugs are known for occasional and serious adverse reactions, particularly on the cardiovascular system in humans," the plea said.It said an extraordinary joint bulletin issued on April 8 by leading American cardiology societies have cautioned that use of HCQ and AZM in COVID-19 patients can pose serious dangers due to its inherent adverse effects.Canadian Medical Association Journal published a very similar warning for using HCQ and AZM to patients with COVID-19, the plea said, adding that they also increased the risks of heart failure and cardiac mortality."The petitioner-organization submitted an urgent written representation to Ministry of Health intimating it about the serious and potentially life-threatening dangers for using HCQ and AZM in COVID-19 patients and urging it to immediately adopt the precautionary measures.It has also sought directions to the health ministry to obtain "informed consent" from all COVID-19 patients for treatment with HCQ and AZM by bringing necessary changes in the treatment guidelines. MNL ABA SJK SA

SC refuses to pass directions for changing guidelines on Covid-19 treatment

(Eds: adds background) New Delhi, Jun 4 () As India recorded a daily jump of over 8,000 coronavirus cases for the fifth day on Thursday, the Centre told the Supreme Court that a "large number" of make-shift hospitals will have to be built in the near future to accommodate the constant rise in the number of newly infected people. The Centre also contended that though hospitals are responsible for implementing the Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) activities, the final responsibility lies with the health care workers to protect themselves from COVID-19. It further said mandatory quarantine for 14 days after rostering duty of health care workers of 7/14 days is "not justified and warranted". "It is most respectfully submitted that number of cases of COVID-19 are constantly increasing and at some point of time in near future, apart from existing hospitals, large number of temporary make-shift hospitals will have to be created in order to accommodate COVID-19 patients requiring admission, medical care and treatment," the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare said in a written affidavit. The affidavit was filed before a bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M R Shah on a plea that questioned the Centre's new Standard Operating Procedure(SOP) of May 15 for frontline COVID-19 health care workers by which it ended the 14-day mandatory quarantine for them. The court allowed petitioner and private doctor Dr. Arushi Jain's counsels advocate Mithu Jain and Arjun Syal to file the rejoinder affidavit to the Centre's reply within a week and posted the matter for June 12. The country registered a record single-day jump of 9,304 coronavirus cases on Thursday pushing the total tally to 2,16,919, while the death toll climbed to 6,075 with 260 new fatalities, according to the Union Health ministry. The number of active COVID-19 cases stood at 1,06,737, it said. The ministry in its reply affidavit said health care workers(HCW) are properly protected by Personal Protective Equipments(PPE) in workplace settings and carry no additional risk to their families or children. It said grievances raised by the petitioner alleging infirmities in the May 15 guidelines of the health ministry are completely presumptuous, vacuous, ill-founded and sans any empirical or medical evidence. Justifying its advisory and SOPs, the health ministry said it is a step in the right direction and that the guidelines emphasise the role of taking adequate preventive measures by all health care workers in the hospital setting against the likelihood of contracting infection at their work place. It added that the risk profiling of those exposed has been deliberated in detail in the technical body under the Directorate General of Health Services, the Joint Monitoring Group (JMG), which also has a representative of World Health Organisation(WHO). "This risk assessment approach is also in line with guidelines issued by Centre for Disease Control, Atlanta, USA that only high risk exposure needs to be quarantined for 14 days. Hence, mandatory quarantine for 14 days, after rostering duty of health care workers of 7/14 days is therefore not justified and warranted," it added. The Centre submitted that to successfully create optimum infrastructure to provide best medical care to coronavirus patients it will also have to adequately address human resource issue for this envisaged surge capacity scenario. "Hence, conserving health care work force is the need of the hour in order to cater to the anticipated patient load in the hour of distress." The ministry submitted that while the Hospital Infection Control Committee (HICC) in the health facility is responsible for implementing the Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) activities and for organising regular training for HCWs, the final responsibility lies with the worker to prevent infection and to protect himself or herself. The ministry further said it is also his/her responsibility to adequately train himself/herself and take all possible measures for preventing the infection and if adequate measures are scrupulously observed, the chances of of the health care workers contracting the infection would not be higher than that of any other person. "…It is submitted that the current pandemic of COVID-19 is unprecedented and there is no time tested and universally acceptable protocol pertaining to COVID-19 preparedness. "Furthermore, the biggest challenge to deal with this pandemic is that there are currently no proven therapeutics or vaccines or rapid point of care diagnostic tests, risk assessment and management protocols for COVID-19 and here are major research gaps in many other key areas of COVID patient and hospital management", the ministry said. As per the advisory, quarantine of health care workers, other than the two categories -- in case of high exposure to COVID-19 and in cases of health care workers showing symptoms of COVID-19 -- is not warranted, the petitioner had said. On April 8, the apex court had observed that the doctors and medical staff are the "first line of defence of the country" in the battle against COVID-19 pandemic, and directed the Centre to ensure that appropriate PPEs are made available to them for treating coronavirus patients. MNL ABA SJK RKS GSN GSN GSN

As COVID-19 cases soar, Centre tells SC make-shift hospitals will have to be built in near future

New Delhi, Jun 9 () The Supreme Court Tuesday asked worst Covid-19 affected state Maharashtra to be more vigilant and make concerted effort in identifying and sending the migrant workers still stranded there to their native places. The top court, which directed all states and Union Territories to transport all stranded workers by train, bus or other mode within 15 days, said there were "huge lapses" by the Maharashtra authorities in dealing with the issue and asked the government there to announce suitable place for their registration. A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M R Shah noted the state government's submission that it has 37,000 migrant workers waiting to return to their native places and it has requested only one train from the railways for sending them back. "We are of the view that State has to make a more vigilant and concentrated effort in identifying the migrant workers, who are still stranded in State of Maharashtra and who are willing to return to their native places," it said. It added that the government should publicise and announce the places like police stations or any other suitable place for identifying/registering the workers who have not yet been provided any train or bus journey. The bench said the state supervisory committee, district supervisory Committee and its officials should ensure that all migrant labourers, who are willing to go to their native place, should be identified, provide them food and shelter and no complaint is received of not providing facility of journey or food by the stranded migrant labourers. The top court said that although in the affidavit, the State claims that it is providing food and shelter to migrant workers and list of entire workers is prepared, such claim has been refuted in different affidavits and materials brought on the record by different parties including intervenors and various individuals. "It is submitted that there is no proper arrangement of food to the migrant labourers nor there is any simple manner of registration of the workers. There are huge lapses on the part of the State authorities in implementing State policies and decisions and most of the claims are only on paper causing great miseries and hardship to the migrant workers," the bench said. Maharashtra government has told the top court that over 12 lakh migrant labourers have been sent to their native places and out of them more than five lakhs passengers have been ferried free of cost by buses of state road transport corporation. On a query by the Court, it has submitted that 37,000 migrant workers are still waiting to return to their native places and the State government has requested for only one train to the railways. On Monday, Mumbai, the country's financial capital and the worst hit city by the dreaded virus outbreak, alone saw its tally of confirmed cases crossing 50,000 and its death count reached 1,702. As per the figures till Monday evening Maharashtra's overall tally of confirmed cases rose by more than 2,500 to reach 88,528 and its death toll mounted to 3,169. In its 30-page order, pronounced through video conferencing in the case it took up suo motu (on its own) on the plight of migrant workers during the Covid-19 lockdown, the top court noted the steps taken by various states including Gujarat and Delhi, which are worst hit by the virus. The top court granted two weeks' time to all the states and UTs to submit additional affidavits in response to various aspects and asked the Centre to also bring on record the different schemes which can be taken by migrant labourer. It noted the submission of Delhi government that about three lakhs migrant workers have been sent to their native places by 236 trains and about 12,000 have been sent by buses. It has said that about 6.5 lakh persons have already registered themselves at the web portal of the Government of NCT of Delhi and about two lakh migrants have chosen to not to go to their native places, presumably that after opening of industries they would reengage themselves to the work. Another worst affected state, Gujarat has told the top court that out of 23 lakh migrant workers working in the State more than 14 lakh have been sent to their native places by 999 'Shramik trains' and more than 5.75 lakh have been sent to their native States by buses. The Uttar Pradesh government informed the court that around 25 lakh migrant workers have safely returned to their native places and government is providing them free of cost last mile connectivity to their villages. Bihar had told the top court that 28 lakh migrant workers have reached the State and the government is in the process of setting up counselling centres, which would examine the skill level of the labourers and suggest the options of employment available in the State. Similar submissions made by Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Karnataka, West Bengal, Kerala and other States and Union Territories on sending and receiving of migrant workers and welfare initiatives taken by the State government to rehabilitate them were noted by the top court in its order. On May 28, the top court had directed that the migrant workers wanting to return to their home states will not be charged train or bus fares and those stranded across the country will be provided food free of cost by the authorities concerned. MNL ABA SJK SA

You Searched For "kishan kaul" and got 13 results