Gorakhpur tragedy: Allegations against Dr Kafeel Khan proven false

Agencies
September 27, 2019

Gorakhpur, Sept 27: Two years after 70 infants died at the BRD Medical College here, a UP government inquiry has given a clean chit to Dr. Kafeel Khan in the case.

Dr. Khan was suspended following the death of children in the hospital in August 2017.

Investigating Officer of the case, Principal Secretary, Stamp, and Registration, Himanshu Kumar, said on Friday that Dr. Khan has been given a clean chit in the case.

The infants had died allegedly because of disruption in oxygen supply due to pending payments to the supplier, a charge stoutly refuted by the state government.

The government has maintained that the children died due to different illnesses, including Japanese Encephalitis (JE) and there was no shortage of oxygen.

Dr. Khan told PTI that "Principal, BRD Medical College, Ganesh Kumar gave me the UP Government letter. It clearly describes that I am free from charges of medical negligence, corruption and not performing duty on that fateful day when around 70 children lost their lives at BRD Medical College Hospital". "My bail order of Allahabad Court of April 25, 2018, confirmed that I was not part of the tendering process of oxygen supply and also there is no material on record which proves my medical negligence," he said. Kumar said, "It is a procedure that Government letters and orders are handed over in person under which the letter was given to Dr. Kafeel Khan on Thursday".

As per the investigation report, Dr. Khan was neither the nodal medical officer in charge of encephalitis wards at BRD nor documents contesting the same provided by the department were adequate and consistent.

The report also states that Dr. Khan was not involved in the process of allotting tenders for oxygen supply amounting to corruption, or of medical negligence on his part on the day of the tragedy.

The report also says that Dr. Khan informed seniors about the shortage of oxygen supply and arranged seven oxygen cylinders on the night of August 10-11, 2017.

Dr. Khan said he will hold a press conference in Delhi and ask CM Yogi Adityanath as to why his suspension has not been revoked so far.

"I have got the clean chit now. The question arises as to who killed the 70 children," he said.

Dr. Khan said the letter handed over to him was dated April 18.

Comments

ABDUL AZIZ SHE…
 - 
Saturday, 28 Sep 2019

sure Truth prevails and evil is perished,   justice done

 

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 1,2020

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.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
May 29,2020

New Delhi, May 29: With the highest spike of 7,466 more COVID-19 cases and 175 deaths reported in the past 24 hours, India's COVID-19 tally reached 1,65,799 on Friday, according to the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

The number of active coronavirus cases stands at 89,987 while 71,105 people have been cured or recovered and one patient has migrated, it said. The death toll due to the infection has reached 4,706 in the country.

Maharashtra is the worst affected state with 59,546 cases. Tamil Nadu has recorded as many as 19,372 cases while Gujarat and Delhi have recorded 15,562 and 16,281 coronavirus cases respectively.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
coastaldigest.com news network
July 27,2020

Ayodhya, Jul 27: With days to go for the August 5 "bhoomi pujan" ceremony of the Ram temple in Ayodhya, the mosques adjacent to the demolished Babri Masjid premises are spreading the message of a peaceful coexistence of Hindus and Muslims.

There are eight mosques and two mausoleums located close to the 70-acre Babri Masjid premises mandated by the Supreme Court for a temple of Sri Ram.

Azaan and namaaz are offered in the mosques and the annual "Urs" is held at the mausoleums without any objection from the local Hindus.

The eight mosques located near the upcoming Ram temple premises are Masjid Dorahikuan, Masjid Mali Mandir ke Bagal, Masjid Kaziyana Achchan ke Bagal, Masjid Imambara, Masjid Riyaz ke Bagal, Masjid Badar Paanjitola, Masjid Madaar Shah and Masjid Tehribazar Jogiyon ki.

The two mausoleums are Khanqaahe Muzaffariya and Imambara.

"It is the greatness of Ayodhya that the mosques surrounding the Ram temple are giving a strong message of communal harmony to the rest of the world," Haji Asad Ahmad, the corporator of the Ram Kot ward, said. The Ram temple area is situated in Ahmad's ward.

"Muslims take out the 'juloos' of Barawafaat that goes through the periphery of Ram Janmabhoomi. All religious functions and rituals of Muslims are respected by their fellow citizens," the corporator said.

Asked for a comment on the presence of mosques near the upcoming Ram temple premises, the chief priest of the temple, Acharya Satyendra Das, said, "We had a dispute only with the structure that was connected to the name of (Mughal emperor) Babur. We have never had any issue with the other mosques and mausoleums in Ayodhya. This is a town where Hindus and Muslims live in peace."

"Muslims offer namaaz, we perform our puja. The mosques around us will strengthen Ayodhya's communal harmony and peace will prevail," he added.

Both Hindus and Muslims have accepted the Supreme Court verdict over Ram Janmabhoomi, Das said, adding, "We have no dispute with each other."

Sayyad Akhlaq Ahmad Latifi, the "sajjada nasheen" and "pir" of the 500-year-old Khanqaahe Muzaffariya mausoleum, said Muslims in Ayodhya are performing all religious practices freely.

"We offer prayers five times a day in the mosque at Khanqaah and hold the yearly 'Urs'," he added.

"What a scene would it be -- a grand Ram temple surrounded by small mosques and mausoleums and everyone offering prayers according to their beliefs. That will be representative of the true culture of India," Mahant Yugal Kishore Sharan Shastri, the chief priest of the Sarayu Kunj temple adjacent to the Ram Janmabhoomi premises, said.

Reacting to the presence of mosques and mausoleums near the Ram Janmabhoomi premises, Triloki Nath Pandey, the decree holder of the land as the "first friend of Ram Lalla" as mandated by the Supreme Court, said, "We do not have any objection to either those mosques or any other mosques. We will not trigger a dispute regarding any structure, Ayodhya must live in peace and communal harmony."

Mahant Raju Das, the priest of the Hanumangarhi temple, said, "The presence of the mosques tells the story of Ayodhya's communal harmony. A Ram mandir will be built and there will be no objection to the mosques or religious practices of Muslims."

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.