80 Muslim leaders quit BJP in Madhya Pradesh over CAA

Jun 12: There have been complaints of non-availability of beds or denial of treatment to coronavirus patients in the national capital despite nearly 70 per cent of beds in five designated hospitals run by the Delhi government lying vacant, with experts attributing it to people''s aversion towards state-run facilities.

As per the latest information shared on the Delhi Corona app on Thursday afternoon, more than 3,000 beds are lying vacant in these five dedicated COVID-19 hospitals that have a total capacity of 4,344 beds.

However, almost all beds at several big private hospitals are shown to be occupied.

Families of many COVID-19 patients, confirmed or suspected, have alleged in the past few weeks that they have been denied admission at many facilities or have not been able to get a bed for their kin.

Medical and public health experts feel it may be because of the image associated with government hospitals, related to infrastructure and hygiene conditions, and perhaps shortage of staff.

According to the latest data available on Delhi Corona app on Thursday afternoon, a total of 9,444 beds are available in private facilities and hospitals run by the central and Delhi governments. Out of these, 4,371 are vacant.

The app shows that beds are available at Delhi government-run hospitals dedicated for COVID-19 treatment such as LNJP Hospital (1,219), GTB Hospital (1,314), Rajiv Gandhi Super Speciality Hospital or RGSSH (242).

However, almost all beds at several big private hospitals are shown to be occupied.

At LNJP Hospital, there are a total of 2,000 beds, out of these 781 are occupied. GTB Hospital has total 1,500 beds, only 186 of which are occupied. Even at RGSSH, 258 of the 500 beds are occupied.

Beds are available at other dedicated COVID-19 facilities in the national capital too, according to the app. Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital has 94 unoccupied beds out of a total 176 and Satyawadi Raja Harishchandra Hospital has 145 vacant beds out of a total 168.

This makes a total of 4,344 COVID-19 beds at these five dedicated Delhi government hospitals, out of which 3,014 or 69.38 per cent are vacant.

A senior doctor at the RGSSH said, "We are only admitting very serious COVID-19 patients in the hospital. Those with mild symptoms, or asymptomatic ones, are either being home quarantined or being sent to COVID Care Centres. Our beds are on stand-by also to accommodate serious patients in case there is a sudden rush."

Delhi Heath Minster Satyendar Jain had recently said that some private hospitals could have been denying admission, but the Delhi government-run hospitals have not denied beds to any needy COVID-19 patient.

He had also said that main private hospitals are almost full to their capacity in terms of number of COVID-19 beds.

According to the app, at prominent private hospitals like Indraprastha Apollo, Max Hospital in Shalimar Bagh, Fortis Hospital in Shalimar Bagh, BL Kapur Hospital are fully occupied.

Max Hospital in Saket has a total of 200 beds for COVID-19 patients, and only one is vacant.

On June 9, the Delhi government had directed 22 private hospitals in the national capital to dedicate a total of 2,015 extra beds for treatment of coronavirus patients, revising its earlier allocation limit of 20 per cent.

Lawyer and public heath activist Ashok Agarwal said infrastructure and hygiene are two main factors, and people still want to "avoid government facilities".

"I know of cases, where people were willing to be on waiting list of private hospitals but did not go to a government hospital, even though beds were available," he said.

Even those who went to a government hospital for COVID-19 treatment, complained of "dirty toilets, and these being used by multiple patients", Agarwal said.

"Also, as the cases erupted successively over the months, many people got scared and were in two minds to go to a government hospital, as admitted patients were making allegations in videos and on social media about lack of proper services. Besides, there is shortage of medical staff at various facilities, and each patient needs to be attended to," he argued.

Delhi government hospitals and private facilities were directed to prominently display information about the availability of beds on a flex board at their main gates.

Delhi Lt Governor Anil Baijal on Wednesday ordered Delhi hospitals to display the availability of COVID and non-COVID beds, charges for rooms or beds along with contact details on a LED board outside the hospital.

Max Hospital sources said they were already displaying the status of beds on LED screens near their reception area even before the government order.

A spokesperson from Fortis Hospital said, "We are in the process of arranging to put up the displays as per the prescribed format."

Delhi recorded 1,501 fresh coronavirus cases on Wednesday, taking the COVID-19 tally in the city to over 32,000, and the death toll due to the disease mounted to 984, authorities said.

Srinagar, Jan 15: The Jammu and Kashmir administration on Tuesday evening allowed mobile Internet in parts of Jammu region and broadband in establishments providing essential services, days after the Supreme Court ordered a review of the curbs imposed in the Union Territory.

The order comes into effect from January 15 and shall remain in force for seven days, a government communication said.

In a three-page order, the administration asked Internet service providers to offer broadband facility (with Mac binding) to all institutions dealing with essential services such as hospitals, banks and government offices.

In order to facilitate tourism, the broadband Internet services would be provided to hotels and tour and travel establishments, the order said.

Mac Binding essentially means to enforce a client machine to work from a particular Internet Protocol address.

"Prior to giving such facility, the service providers have been asked to install necessary firewalls and carry out white-listing of sites that would enable government websites and website dealing with essential services like e-banking," the order said.

However, all social media sites remain out of bounds. "There shall be complete restrictions on social media applications allowing peer-to-peer communication and virtual private network applications for the time being," the order said.

The institutions and government offices that are being provided Internet access shall be responsible to prevent misuse, according to the order.

It said the 2G mobile connectivity on post-paid mobiles for accessing white-listed websites including e-banking will be allowed in districts of Jammu, Samba, Kathua, Udhampur and Reasi -- all in the Jammu region.

The order said that the police has brought material relating to the terror modules operating in Jammu and Kashmir including handlers from across the border who are attempting to aid and incite people by transmission of fake news and targeted messages through use of Internet.

The relaxation came days after the Supreme Court said access to the Internet is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution.

The SC verdict had come on Friday on a batch of pleas challenging the curbs imposed in Jammu and Kashmir after the Centre's abrogation of provisions of Article 370 on August 5 last year.

The court had also asked the Jammu and Kashmir administration to review within a week all orders imposing curbs in the Union Territory.

It had asked the J-K administration to restore Internet services in institutions such as hospitals and educational places providing essential services.

The J-K administration's Tuesday communication said that in view of the Supreme Court directions, the situation has been reviewed and Internet has been opened whereever it was possible keeping in view the security consideration.

In Kashmir, 400 additional Internet kiosks will be established, besides the 900 terminals which are already operational in the Valley.

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.