Covid-19: Special action plan for Kasargod district

University of Oxford researchers have claimed that a cheap and widely available drug called dexamethasone can help save the lives of patients who are seriously ill with coronavirus.

Scientists working on the Recovery Trial found the drug could help patients on ventilators and oxygen, but had no effect on those who did not need help breathing.

“Based on these results, one death would be prevented by treatment of around eight ventilated patients or around 25 patients requiring oxygen alone,” researchers said in a statement.

Matt Hancock, the health secretary, tweeted: “This global first exemplifies the power of science.”

“I’m absolutely delighted that today we can announce the first successful clinical trial for a treatment for Covid-19,” Mr Hancock said.

Recovery Trial experts said a randomised group of 2,104 patients was given 6mg of dexamethasone per day for 10 days, while another group of 4,321 were given normal treatment.

Dexamethasone reduced deaths by one-fifth in patients on oxygen feeds and by one-third in those who needed a ventilator to breathe, preliminary results showed.

Mr Hancock added: “This is a huge step forward and it’s because we’ve backed the science.”

Martin Landray, professor of medicine and epidemiology at the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, and one of the trial’s chief investigators, said in a statement: “These preliminary results from the Recovery Trial are very clear – dexamethasone reduces the risk of death among patients with severe respiratory complications.

“Covid-19 is a global disease – it is fantastic that the first treatment demonstrated to reduce mortality is one that is instantly available and affordable worldwide.”

A 7-year-old Dalit girl who had gone missing from outside her residence in Tamil Nadu’s Pudukkottai district on June 30 was found dead last evening. 

Police sources said that the body with severe injures was found in a forest area bordering her village. The young girl had been sexually assaulted before the murder, according to police.

Victim’s neighbour, Raja, 25, who belongs to the Pandaram caste, has been arrested in connection with the incident.

While they have included murder charges in the First Information Report (FIR) against him, they are awaiting the post-mortem report to add sections of the Protection of Children against Sexual Offence Act (POCSO act) in the FIR.

"The girl was playing outside her home at 4pm. Her parents then found her missing and her father filed a complaint at the station at around 7pm. Efforts were then underway to find the girl," said an investigating official.

They found the minor's body in the forest area near her village on the evening of July 1. Her clothes were in a state of disarray and her face was severely injured.

"She has been beaten with sticks on the face and injuries are clearly visible. The post-mortem will reveal the actual cause of death," says an official from the district.

Police sources further add that the neighbour had found the minor roaming around the area on Wednesday and allegedly took advantage of the fact that she was alone.

"During inquiry he admitted that he had sexually assaulted and murdered the girl," says a police official from the district. "Further investigation is underway and we will have more clarity once we get the post mortem report," he adds.

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.