Mangaluru: Hit by bus, young biker thrown onto moving car, falls on road, crashed to death

Patna, Mar 31: In arguably the first of its kind incident in the country, a young man in Bihar was beaten to death precisely because he had informed the district control room about two corona suspects who had arrived here in the State from Mumbai.

The incident took place in Sitamarhi in North Bihar where a 20-year-old youth Bablu Kumar was allegedly killed by Sudhir Mahto and Munna Mahto.

The two Mahtos had arrived from Mumbai to Sitamarhi around ten days back. Bablu, in the meantime, informed the district control room about the arrival of two persons from a State where a large number of people were afflicted with coronavirus.

A team of doctors on March 24 reached Runnisaidpur in Sitamarhi to examine the two suspects. Three days later, these two persons from Maharashtra tested negative.

But the incident (of informing control room and subsequent medial test) created such enmity between the family of Mahtos and Babloo that on Sunday when they found the 20-year-old young man sitting alone, they thrashed him so mercilessly that he died on the spot.

Shocked and grief-struck, Babloo’s father Vinod Singh eventually lodged an FIR with the police and named Sudhir Mahto, Munna Mahto, and their family members as accused in the killing of his son.

The police on Monday raided the place and arrested the Mahtos.

But then, this is not an isolated case of violence. In another incident that took place in Bihar’s Jehanabad district, a BDO Ajay Kumar and a police officer Chandrashekhar Kumar were attacked by fellow villagers when the officials reached there to quarantine those migrants who had reached there from Delhi. So angry were the villagers with the officials’ move to isolate the migrants that they smashed the window-panes of the government vehicles and attacked the officials.

The officials had to beat a hasty retreat. But they soon returned with additional police team which used brutal force and took local leaders into custody before restoring normalcy in the area.

In a development which highlights the diversity in the United Kingdom’s legal system, a 40-year-old Muslim woman has become the first hijab-wearing judge in the country.

Raffia Arshad, a barrister, was appointed a deputy district judge on the Midlands circuit last week after 17-year career in law.  

She said her promotion was great news for diversity in the world’s most respected legal system. She hopes to be an inspiration to young Muslims.

Ms Arshad, who grew up in Yorkshire, north England, has wanted to work in law since she was 11.

Ms Arshad said the judicial office was looking to promote diversity, but when they appointed her they did not know that she wore the hijab.

‘It’s definitely bigger than me,” she told Metro newspaper. "I know this is not about me.

"It’s important for all women, not just Muslim women, but it is particularly important for Muslim women."

Ms Arshad, a mother of three, has been practising private law dealing with children, forced marriage, female genital mutilation and other cases involving Islamic law for the past 17 years.

She was the first in her family to go to university and has also written a leading text on Islamic family law.

Although the promotion by the Lord Chief Justice was welcome news for her, Ms Arshad said the happiness from other people sharing the news was “far greater”.

“I’ve had so many emails from people, men and women," she said.

"It’s the ones from women that stand out, saying that they wear a hijab and thought they wouldn’t even be able to become a barrister, let alone a judge."

Ms Arshad is regularly the subject of discrimination in the courtroom because of her choice to wear the hijab.

She is sometimes mistaken for a court worker or a client.

Ms Arshad said that recently she was asked by an usher whether she was a client, an interpreter, and even if she were on work experience.

“I have nothing against the usher who said that but it reflects that as a society, even for somebody who works in the courts, there is still this prejudicial view that professionals at the top end don’t look like me,” she said.

A family member once advised her to not wear a hijab at an interview for a scholarship at the Inns of Court School of Law in 2001, warning that it would affect her chances of landing the role.

“I decided that I was going to wear my headscarf because for me it’s so important to accept the person for who they are," Ms Arshad said.

"And if I had to become a different person to pursue my profession, it’s not something I wanted.”

The joint heads of St Mary’s Family Law Chambers said they were “delighted” to hear the news of her appointment.

“Raffia has led the way for Muslim women to succeed in the law and at the bar, and has worked tirelessly to promote equality and diversity in the profession,” Vickie Hodges and Judy Claxton said.

“It is an appointment richly deserved and entirely on merit, and all at St Mary’s are proud of her and wish her every success.”

Bengaluru, Jul 1: Eighteen private hospitals here have been slapped with a show-cause notice after a 52-year old patient with influenza-like illness symptoms died here on being allegedly denied admission by them citing "non- availability" of beds. 

Health Minister B Sriramulu on Wednesdy said refusal to provide treatment was not only inhuman but also illegal as he tagged a copy of the notice in a tweet. 

"Notice has been served to the hospitals taking cognisance of the (media) reports about the denial of admission to a patient in emergency. Denying medical assistance during emergency is not only inhuman but also illegal," he tweeted. According to a report, the son and nephew of the patient took him to the 18 hospitals on Saturday and Sunday but he was not admitted on the pretext of non-availability of beds or ventilators. 

The man died later. The Commissioner of Health and Family Welfare issued the show-cause notice to the top authorities of the hospitals under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishment (KPME) Act, 2007. 

"By denying admission to the patient, your hospitals have violated the provisions of the KPME Act. You are liable for legal action," the notice said, seeking replies within 24 hours as to why action should not be against the hospitals. 

This was a "clear violation" of providing medical assistance and admission necessitated under the agreed provision of the KPME registration. Private medical establishments cannot refuse or avoid treatment to patients suffering from COVID-19 or having symptoms, the common notice added. 

The incident comes in the backdop of repeated instructions by the government that hospitals cannot deny admission to the patients suffering from coronavirus or having symptoms.