Ground-based discovery of two strongly interacting exoplanets

New Delhi, Jan 22: "Don't get into a trap. Your security is in your hands," the Border Security Force (BSF) has said issuing its social media rules for its officers and men. It has directed them not to use 42 mobile applications and show caution while using Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp.

"Be cautious while using social media," said the BSF in a circular issued recently.

"Before using WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms, one needs to keep in mind that you are border guarding force and Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules rule duly are applicable," it said.

It further pointed out that by commenting/writing about or forwarding unverified reports and rumours one violates laws of land.

"Several times unverified reports would be presented in way that they are absolutely true and start believing it. Seeing such post always use your commonsense and never get into the trap (sic.)," it state adding that the anti-national elements uses social media to propagate their agenda to cause unrest in India.

A picture clicked by Border Security Force personnel and posted on a social media platform remains there for always. Therefore, one should use officially approved pictures about any incident or untoward incidents related to Border Security Force, stated the circular. It pointed that unauthorised persons should not engage into taking pictures of the incidents.

It also highlighted how through social media, a few BSF personnel have fallen into trap of espionage racket carried out by enemy countries.

"Our security and respect is in our hands. Always think twice whether you are doing correct by accepting friendship requests from unknown persons, especially women and girls," it cautioned the troopers and officers.

It also highlighted that while going on leave and joining back the force, always follow the rules and regulations laid out for safety and security. "This is for your own safety," it stressed in the end.

The BSF has also issued a list of 42 mobile applications that needs to be completely avoided by serving BSF officers and jawans.

They are MI store, Weibo, Wechat, Shareit, Truecaller, UC News, UC Browser, Beautyplus, NewsDog, Viva Video - QU video Inc, Parallel Space, Apus Browser, Perfect Corp, Virus Cleaner - HI Security Lab, CM browser, MI Community, DU recorder, Vault Hide - No mobile Security, Youcam Makeup, Cachecleaner DU Apps Studio, DU battery saver, DU privacy, 360 security, DU Browser,Clean master - Cheeta Mobile, Baidu Translate, Wonder Camera - Bindu Inc, ES Ifle Explorer, Photo Wonder, QQ international , QQ music, QQ Mail, AA player, QQ News Feed, Wesync, QQ security Center, Selfie City, Mail Master, Mi Video Call -Xaomi and QQ launcher.

Chennai, Jun 22: Commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment for five convicts, the Madras High Court on Monday set free Chinnasamy, the main convict, who had also been sentenced to death in the Udumalpet Shankar honour killing case.

A Division Bench comprising Justice M. Sathyanarayanan and Justice M. Nirmal Kumar also dismissed the appeal by the state police against the acquittal of three persons by a lower court.

The Bench ordered the five convicts sentenced for life to undergo a jail term of not less than 25 years.

In 2016, V. Shankar, who had married C. Kausalya, was killed by a gang in Udumalpet in Tamil Nadu. The gang also injured Kausalya in the attack.

It was alleged the parents of Kausalya -- Chinnasamy, Annalakshmi -- were against the marriage.

P. Pandidurai, the uncle of Kausalya at the behest of Chinnasamy and Annalakshmi had hired a gang to kill Shankar.

The gang killed Shankar in broad daylight in a public place and Kausalya too got injured in the attack as she tried to save her husband.

The Principal District and Sessions Court in Tiruppur had convicted and sentenced to death six accused persons -- Chinnasamy, P. Jagadeesan, P. Selvakumar, M. Manikandan, M. Mathan alias Michael and P. Kalaithamilvaanan.

The court also sentenced two other accused, K. Dhanraj for life and Manikandan to a five year jail term, while acquitting Annalakshmi, Pandidurai and Prasanna.

The convicts had filed an appeal against their sentence in the Madras High Court while the police filed an appeal against the acquittal of three persons.

Mumbai, Jun 27: The Bombay High Court observed that COVID-19 patients from poor and indigent sections cannot be expected to produce documentary proof to avail subsidised or free treatment while getting admitted to hospitals.

The court on Friday was hearing a plea filed by seven residents of a slum rehabilitation building in Bandra, who had been charged ₹ 12.5 lakh by K J Somaiya Hospital for COVID-19 treatment between April 11 and April 28.

The bench of Justices Ramesh Dhanuka and Madhav Jamdar directed the hospital to deposit ₹10 lakh in the court.

The petitioners had borrowed money and managed to pay ₹10 lakh out of ₹12.5 lakh that the hospital had demanded, after threatening to halt their discharge if they failed to clear the bill, counsel Vivek Shukla informed the court.

According to the plea, the petitioners were also overcharged for PPE kits and unused services.

On June 13, the court had directed the state charity commissioner to probe if the hospital had reserved 20% beds for poor and indigent patients and provided free or subsidised treatment to them.

Last week, the joint charity commissioner had informed the court that although the hospital had reserved such beds, it had treated only three poor or indigent persons since the lockdown.

It was unfathomable that the hospital that claimed to have reserved 90 beds for poor and indigent patients had treated only three such persons during the pandemic, advocate Shukla said.

He further argued that COVID-19 patients, who are in distress, cannot be expected to produce income certificate and such documents as proof.

However, senior advocate Janak Dwarkadas, who represented the hospital, said the petitioners did not belong to economically weak or indigent categories and had not produced documents to prove the same.

A person who is suffering from a disease like COVID-19 cannot be expected to produce certificates from a tehsildar or social welfare officer before seeking admission in the hospital, the bench noted and asked the hospital to deposit ₹10 lakh in court within two weeks.