Kerala police chief denies confirming 'love jihad' in state

Bengaluru, Jan 21: A private hospital in Bengaluru, the capital of Karnataka, on Tuesday claimed that it has successfully performed a live liver transplant on a Jehovah's Witness from Nigeria, by not using blood or blood products, in order to protect the patient's religious beliefs.

It is said that Jehovah's Witnesses are followers of a Christian faith that prohibits the use of blood or blood products during their treatment. Gehojadak (37), a Jehovah's Witness follower, had developed decompensated liver disease and visited more than three countries seeking treatment over the last four years but was turned away by most doctors due to the highly risky nature of surgery, Aster CMI Hospital said.

The surgery was challenging compared to a normal liver transplant because in order to protect the patient's religious beliefs, the medical team could not use blood or blood products (Fresh frozen plasma, Cryoprecipitate, Platelets etc), it said in a release, adding that very few such surgeries have been successfully conducted worldwide.

The patient's brother was the donor, the hospital said, adding, without a liver transplant, Gehojadak's chances of survival were less than 10 per cent over the next two years. A team of liver specialists from the Hospital thoroughly reviewed the patient's medical history before recommending a bloodless liver transplant and charted out a feasible pathway to make the surgery a success.

"This transplant was especially challenging as we did not have the safety net (of using blood) even if the patient's life was at risk due to their advance directive. We have performed other non-transplant liver surgeries in Jehovah's Witnesses and this gave us the confidence to take on Gehojadak's transplant," Dr Rajiv Lochan, Consultant Liver Transplant Surgeon, said.

The critical surgery took a 12-hour period to complete where two teams of specialists with close to 25 doctors including anaesthetists, intensivists worked in absolute sync with each other and Gehojadak finally received a life-saving liver transplant, the Hospital said. In a period of two weeks, the patient and his brother were fit enough to go home and were discharged from the hospital.

"Even if their haemoglobin levels dropped to life-threatening levels, the patients were clear that they would not accept a blood transfusion. Keeping the limitations in mind, the most effective treatment path was planned, and we spent close to two months preparing the patients for surgery," Arun V, Consultant Anesthesiologist said. The hospital arranged customised artificial products like synthetic drug molecules, to conduct a bloodless liver transplant, he added.

Mandya, Apr 7: A man who was suspected of having the COVID-19 infection, escaped from the isolation ward of the Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences (MIMS), on Monday, creating panic among the people and hospital staff.

The man had earlier been in quarantine in Malavalli. On Sunday night He was shifted to MIMS Hospital, after he complained of throat infection and breathing problems and was kept in an isolation ward.

On Monday morning, however, the hospital staff found missing from the ward. They immediately reported the matter and launched a search for him. Superintendent of Police K Parashuram and Additional SP V J Shobharani and others rushed to the spot and began an inquiry. They also viewed the CCTV footage.

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.