Demolish Delhi Jama Masjid, hang me if idols are not found: Sakshi Maharaj

New Delhi, Jun 4: CSIR Director-General Shekhar Mande said on Thursday that the World Health Organisation's (WHO) decision to halt hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) drug trial was taken in haste and the global body should have actually analysed the data before making the decision.

"I firmly believe that WHO decision was taken in haste it was a kind of knee jerk reaction they should have actually analyse the data on their own before temporarily suspend the trials that is my personal opinion," Mande said.

India's nodal government agency ICMR (Indian Council of Medical Research) overseeing the country's response to the coronavirus pandemic last month wrote to the WHO citing differences in dosage standards between Indian and international trials that could explain the efficacy issues of HCQ in treating COVID-19 patients.

In addition, Dr Sheela Godbole, National Coordinator of the WHO-India Solidarity Trial and Head of the Division of Epidemiology, ICMR-National AIDS Research Institute also wrote a letter via an email to Dr Soumya Swaminathan, Chief Scientist at World Health Organisation.

In a letter, Dr Godbole stated: "There was no reason to suspend the trial for safety concern," attributing it to the current RECOVERY data which differs significantly from the non-randomised assessment by Mehra et al, a scientific paper.

Referring to the letter, the CSIR head said, "We don't know what actually happened behind the scenes but the hypothesis is that because of the paper published in Lancet. It is a very well known journal and if Lancet has done due vigilance in publishing the paper. 

Therefore, the WHO thought the paper's findings are right that's why WHO hold based on what is published on Lancet. The WHO shouldn't have accepted it immediately this should have taken their own due vigilance to find out that study is right or not."

DG CSIR said because there is a global outcry it must have put pressure on both Lancet as well as WHO and both of them now retracted from their original position. "WHO has started a trial again and Lancet has put an expression of concern on their website both of these are very welcome development for science," he said.

"So I am pretty sure that Lancet would have published the reports only after seeing somewhere the drug failed to work," Mande said.

Lucknow, May 27: Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath has taken a U-turn, two days after he declared that permission would be needed if other states employ workers from UP.

The issue sparked a major controversy and an official spokesman has now said that the government would not include this clause of 'prior permission' in the bye-laws of the Migration Commission.

The government spokesman also said it was working on modalities to set up the commission to provide jobs and social security to migrant workers returning to the state. It has named the migration commission as the "Shramik Kalyan Aayog (Workers welfare commission).

About 26 lakh migrants have already returned to the state and an exercise to map their skills is being carried out to help them get jobs.

Yogi Adityanath has discussed the modalities for setting up the commission and told his officers to complete the skill mapping exercise in 15 days.

A senior official of Team 11, said, "The chief minister discussed the modalities for setting up the commission, as well. There will be no provision requiring other states to seek UP government's prior permission for employing our manpower. The commission is being set up to provide jobs and social security to the workers. We will also link the migrants to the government schemes to provide them houses and loans etc."

Yogi Adityanath said a letter should be sent to all state governments to find out about migrant workers wanting to come back to Uttar Pradesh.

Earlier, the chief minister, while speaking at a webinar on Sunday, had said, "The migration commission will work in the interest of migrant workers. If any other state wants UP's manpower, they cannot take them just like that, but will have to seek permission of the UP government. The way our migrant workers were ill-treated in other states, the UP government will take their insurance, social security in its hands now. The state government will stand by them wherever they work, whether in Uttar Pradesh, other states or other countries."

The statement had sparked a row with some political leaders and parties questioning the move.

Former Congress president Rahul Gandhi sharply criticized Adityanath's stand, saying the workers were not the chief minister's personal property.

"It is very unfortunate that the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh views India in such a way. These people are not his personal property. They are not the personal property of Uttar Pradesh. These people are Indian citizens and they have the right to decide what they want to do and they have the right to live the life they want to live," he had said.

Maharashtra Navnirman Sena chief Raj Thackeray had also taken on Adityanath and said that if UP insists on "permission" before other states can employ workers from there, "then any migrant entering Maharashtra would need to take permissions from us, from the Maharashtra state, our police force too."

Meanwhile, the government spokesman said, "The chief minister is deeply moved by the condition of migrants. They have been treated badly by other states. So, when the chief minister spoke about the need for seeking UP government's permission, he did so as a guardian for workers. It's only his concern for the migrants that came out as a political statement."

New Delhi, Jul 21: The Supreme Court has asked the Ministry of Finance to look into a plea which claimed a loss of hundreds of crore every day, as the public sector banks are not invoking personal guarantees of big corporates who have defaulted on loans.

A bench comprising Justice R. F. Nariman and Navin Sinha asked the petitioners, Saurabh Jain and Rahul Sharma, who filed the PIL, to move the Finance Ministry with a representation within two weeks. The top court observed that the issue is important and the ministry should respond after the petitioner has made the representation before it. The matter had come up for hearing on Monday.

"We are of the view that at page 115 of the Writ Petition it has been made clear that the Ministry of Finance itself has, by a Circular, directed personal guarantees issued by promoters/managerial personnel to be invoked. According to the petitioners, despite this Circular, Public Sector Undertakings continue not to invoke such guarantees resulting in huge loss not only to the public exchequer but also to the common man", said the bench in its order.

Senior advocate Manan Mishra and advocate Durga Dutt, represented the petitioners.

Mishra contended before the bench that the statistics establish the public sector banks incurred a loss of approximately Rs 1.85 lakh crore in a financial year, and the banks did not take action to invoke personal guarantees of the biggest corporate defaulters.

The bench observed that since the petitioners claim the public sector undertakings are not complying with this circular, "We think you should first go to the ministry," said the bench.

Mishra argued before the bench that the loans from a common man are recovered through a mechanism where officials go through even the minutest detail, but promoters, chairpersons and other senior level functionaries of the big corporates find it convenient to get away by defaulting on loans.

The bench told the petitioner's counsel that the Finance Ministry has already issued a notification on this matter, and the petitioners should seek response from the ministry, and then move the top court. Mishra submitted before the bench to issue a direction to the Finance Ministry to give a response on their representation.

The bench said, "We allow the petitioners, at this stage, to withdraw this Writ Petition and approach the Ministry of Finance with a representation in this behalf. The representation will be made within a period of two weeks from today. The Ministry of Finance is directed to reply to the said representation within a period of four weeks after receiving such representation. With these observations, the petition is allowed to be withdrawn to do the needful."

Mishra contended before the bench seeking liberty to come back after a reply from the Finance Ministry. Justice Nariman said this option is open for petitioners after a decision has been taken by the ministry. "We will hear you", added Justice Nariman.