Here's the first phase flight plan for return of Indian nationals stranded abroad

Mumbai, Jul 16: Poet-activist Varavara Rao has tested positive for Covid-19. The 80-year old, named as accused in the Elgar Parishad case, was shifted to state-run JJ Hospital from Taloja central jail where he was lodged after he complained of dizziness. The hospital conducted tests including one for Covid-19 the results for which confirmed that he is positive.

Dr Ranjit Mankeshwar, the dean of JJ Hospital said, “He has shown no symptoms of Covid-19 so far. He has no breathing difficulty and is stable. We will soon shift him to a Covid hospital.” Rao is likely to be shifted to St George hospital.

Last week, Rao’s family had held a press conference after receiving a call from him from prison. His family had then said that his condition was deteriorating and he should be provided immediate medical aid. He was earlier shifted to the hospital when he fell unconscious in jail in May but was discharged within three days. The family had said that he was not provided proper medical treatment.

Last month, a special court had rejected his interim bail plea where he had cited his susceptibility to the virus due to his age and other medical conditions. The court, however, had said the superintendent of prison has been directed to take appropriate measures in such cases where medical attention is required. Before he was shifted to the hospital on Tuesday, Rao was admitted to the hospital ward of the jail and as he had been unable to do basic chores without depending on other inmates.

An appeal against the special court’s order is pending before the Bombay High Court. The plea is likely to be heard tomorrow.

Udupi, Mar 14: Amidst growing Coronavirus scare, a youth with suspected Coronavirus symptoms was admitted to Udupi District Hospital here, District Health and Family Welfare Officer Sudhir Chandrachud said.

According to him, A 37-year-old youth, a native of Shirwa, who works in a Japanese ship and was onboard a Japanese vessel that was recently blocked due to the coronavirus. However, he was left out on its way to Dubai, where he was diagnosed with coronavirus infection and he returned to his native.

However, he did not show any of the primary symptoms of coronavirus, such as cough, cold, fever, but he was suffering from diarrhea and abdominal pain with slight respiratory problems following which he has been admitted to an isolated ward in the district hospital here on Friday evening.

New Delhi, Jan 29: The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the plea by Mukesh Kumar Singh, one of the four death row convicts in the Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case, challenging the rejection of his mercy petition by the President.

A three-judge bench headed by Justice R Banumathi said that expeditious disposal of mercy plea by the President doesn't mean non-application of mind by him.

The court also said that alleged sufferings in prison can't be grounds to challenge the rejection of mercy petition.

The bench said all relevant material including judgments pronounced by trial court, high court and Supreme Court were placed before the President when he was considering the mercy plea of the convict.

The bench also comprising justices Ashok Bhushan and A S Bopanna rejected the contentions of the counsel appearing for Singh that entire materials of the case were not placed before the President when he was considering his mercy plea.

The bench, while referring to two files placed before it by the Centre on Tuesday, said that as per the January 15 covering letter which was sent by the Delhi government to the Ministry of Home Affairs, all relevant documents were sent.

The bench noted that detailed judgements of trial court, high court and the Supreme Court, curative petition filed by Singh, his past criminal history and his family background were sent to the Home Ministry by the Delhi government.

"All the documents were taken into consideration by the President while rejecting the mercy petition," the bench said.

The bench also dealt with submissions advanced by the convict's counsel, who had argued that the mercy plea was rejected at "lightning speed".

The bench said that if a mercy petition is expeditiously dealt with, it cannot be assumed that it has been adjudicated upon in a pre-conceived mind.