17-yr-old girl riding pillion falls to death as biker does stunts

Bengaluru, Jun 15: As the central government has not allowed reopening of gyms in the country amid COVID-19 pandemic, many gymnasiums in Bengaluru are on the verge of closing or sale.

Rakshith Gowda, a gym owner and secretary of gym owners association told ANI that they are not even able to pay rent of the premises which is Rs 60,000 to 1 lakh per month.

"The condition of the owners of the gym have worsened. We have to pay a minimum of Rs 60,000 - 100,000 rent of the building and for past 4 months we couldn't pay the rent, salary to trainers and cleaners, EMI," Gowda said.

"I urge the government to take necessary steps to bring up the gym sector as they have allowed opening up of shops, temples, malls. We urge the government to take proper steps in the interest of gyms," added Gowda.

Mahesh, a gymer said that he had to participate in a competition and due to lockdown he could not work on his bodybuilding.

"I was building my body for one year and due to lockdown I couldn't do the workout, I had to take part in a competition, now I need at least another one year to build my body back," Mahesh said.

Prasad, international bodybuilder said, "Most of the bodybuilders and gym owners are running gyms by taking loans, they are not in the situation to pay their loan EMIs."

"It's very important for us to reopen gyms and run them with all precautions and guidelines but the government is not allowing us to pay our loans and many gym owners and trainers are facing a tough time to earn living. We have requested Deputy Chief Minister Govind Karjol and cabinet ministers to allow us to open, but the government hasn't taken the decision in the interest of gyms which is creating more problems for us," Prasad said.

The United States of America has bought almost the entire world's supply of remdesivir, one of just two drugs proven to treat COVID-19. 

“President Trump has struck an amazing deal to ensure Americans have access to the first authorised therapeutic for Covid-19,” said the US health and human services secretary, Alex Azar. 

“To the extent possible, we want to ensure that any American patient who needs remdesivir can get it. The Trump administration is doing everything in our power to learn more about life-saving therapeutics for Covid-19 and secure access to these options for the American people.”

The announcement implies that no other country in the world will be able to buy remdesivir for next three months at least.

The anti-viral drug patented by the US-based Gilead biotech firm is the only one approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to treat patients with the novel coronavirus.

The Trump administration has already shown that it is prepared to outbid and outmanoeuvre all other countries to secure the medical supplies it needs for the US.

“They’ve got access to most of the drug supply [of remdesivir], so there’s nothing for Europe,” said Dr Andrew Hill, senior visiting research fellow at Liverpool University.

Remdesivir, the first drug approved by licensing authorities in the US to treat Covid-19, is made by Gilead and has been shown to help people recover faster from the disease. 

The first 140,000 doses, supplied to drug trials around the world, have been used up. The Trump administration has now bought more than 500,000 doses, which is all of Gilead’s production for July and 90% of August and September.

Bengaluru, Feb 14: In a major embarrassment to the police, the Karnataka High Court has termed as illegal the prohibitory orders imposed under Section 144 of CrPC by the City Police Commissioner in December 2019 in the light of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in Bengaluru.

The orders were passed “without application of mind” and without following due procedures, the court noted. Giving reasons for upholding the arguments of the petitioners that there was no application of mind by the Police Commissioner (Bhaskar Rao) before imposing restrictions, a division bench of the High Court said he had not recorded the reasons, except reproducing the contents of letters addressed to him by the Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs). 

The state government had contended that prohibitory orders were passed based on reports submitted by the DCPs who expressed apprehension about anti-social elements creating law and order problems and damaging public property by taking advantage of the anti-CAA protests.  

The High Court bench said the Police Commissioner should have conducted inquiry as stated by the Supreme Court to check the reasons cited by the DCPs who submitted identical reports. Except for this, there were no facts laid out by the Police Commissioner, the court said.

“There is complete absence of reasons. If the order indicated that the Police Commissioner was satisfied by the apprehension of DCPs, it would have been another matter,” it said.  

“The apex court has held that it must record the reasons for imposition of restrictions and there has to be a formation of opinion by the district magistrate. Only then can  the extraordinary powers conferred on the district magistrate can be exercised. This procedure was not followed. Hence, exercise of power under Section 144 by the commissioner, as district magistrate, was not at all legal”, the bench said. 

“We hold that the order dated December 18, 2019 is illegal and cannot stand judicial scrutiny in terms of the apex court’s orders in the Ramlila Maidan case and Anuradha Bhasin case,” the HC bench said while upholding the arguments of Prof Ravivarma Kumar, who appeared for some of the petitioners.   

Partly allowing a batch of public interest petitions questioning the imposition of prohibitory orders and cancelling the permission granted for protesters in the city, the bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed that, unfortunately, in the present case, there was no indication of application of mind in passing prohibitory orders.

The bench said the observation was confined to this order only and it cannot be applicable in general. If there is a similar situation (necessitating imposition of restrictions), the state is not helpless, the court said.