Kamal Haasan's MNM forges alliance with TMC for Andaman and Nicobar

New Delhi, May 8: The Supreme Court on Friday suggested that states should consider indirect sale and home delivery of liquor as per its statute and law to avoid crowding at liquor shops amid the ongoing coronavirus-induced lockdown.

A bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan refused to pass any orders on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking clarity on the sale of liquor and to ensure social distancing while it is being sold in liquor shops during the lockdown.

"We will not pass any order but the states should consider indirect sale/home delivery of liquor to maintain social distancing norms and standards," Justice Ashok Bhushan said while disposing of the petition.

The PIL, filed by one Sai Deepak, sought directions for closure of liquor shops for failing to enforce social distancing, which is essential to prevent the spread of coronavirus.

The petitioner told the apex court that he only wants that the life of common people is not affected because of crowding at liquor shops during COVID-19.

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, another judge in the bench, said that discussion on home delivery is already going on.

The top court, after hearing the petition complaining about flouting of safety norms at liquor shops, observed that it cannot pass any orders to different states but they should consider online sale and home delivery of liquor.

New Delhi, Jun 17: Police Surender Jeet Kaur, Assistant Commissioner of Delhi Police Surender Jeet Kaur, has held herself responsible for the death of her husband Charan Jeet Singh, who succumbed to Covid at a hospital in Delhi.

“My husband didn’t step out of the house when the lockdown started, but I went out daily because of my job… I will never be able to forgive myself,” Kaur on Tuesday, a day after losing her husband.

54-year-old Singh, a resident of Lajpat Nagar and a businessman, is survived by his wife and their 26-year-old son who lives in Canada.

Kaur, 57, ACP (Crimes Against Women) in the South-East district of the Delhi Police, is also ACP (Covid Cell) of the district. On May 20, five days after Kaur tested positive for the virus, her husband Singh tested positive, followed by the ACP’s 80-year-old father on May 24.

All of them had symptoms and while Kaur and Singh were admitted to Indraprastha Apollo hospital, her father was admitted to Max hospital in Saket. On May 26, Kaur returned home after recovering from the virus.

Kaur said, “I last spoke to my husband on May 22 night, when we were both admitted in the hospital in different wards. The doctor called me and said that my husband needs to be put on ventilator support. I had a video call with my husband. He was breathless and told me that his oxygen level was dropping. He showed me the monitor, the doctors in the room, and then said he was having trouble speaking and that he would send me WhatsApp messages.”

A day after he passed away, Kaur recalled the messages that Singh sent her just before being put on ventilator support. “He started sending me details of our finances, accounts… I told him to stop and asked him why he was telling me all this. He said I needed to know… Maybe he feared he wouldn’t come back. I prayed every day, at temples, mosques, churches and gurdwaras for him. I am devastated that he’s gone. We were to move to Canada to live with our son in 2023 after my retirement. We had so many plans.”

Kaur’s brother Maninder Ahluwalia said the hospital tried plasma therapy but Singh didn’t respond to the treatment. “He had diabetes and high BP, but those were always under control. We were hopeful,” he said.

The couple’s son joined on video call from Canada to watch his father’s last journey from the ambulance to the entrance of the crematorium. “My son couldn’t attend his father’s last rites because there are no flights… It’s so unfortunate,” said Kaur.

Friends and family remember Singh as a “jolly, disciplined and brave man”, while Kaur said he was the “perfect partner”. She said, “When I was an SHO-rank officer, I would work for 36 hours straight some days, and he would handle the house and our son who was growing up. I would miss family functions and important occasions but he would always go and make up for my absence. I was able to do this job for decades because of his support.”

On Tuesday afternoon, Singh was cremated in the presence of close family and members of the police fraternity. “The DCP and the Joint CP called me daily to enquire about my husband, other police officers too. I am grateful for their support. They didn’t let me feel alone for a single day,” said Kaur.

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.