Safeguard intrests of small traders, SC tells centre

January 22, 2013

small_tradersNew Delhi, Jan 22: The Supreme Court on Monday said that interest of small retail traders should not be affected due to foreign direct investment (FDI) in retail sector and sought response from the Centre on how it intends to safeguard their interests.

A bench headed by Justice R.M. Lodha asked the Centre to file its response within three weeks.

“What checks are there to ensure that free trade is not affected, particularly the interest of small traders,” the bench said while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL).

“Apprehension is there in the mind of people that small traders’ interest would be affected,” the bench said, adding, “Some regulatory measures should be there.”

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.
Agencies
May 18,2020

India is among 58 nations, including 27 European Union members, who have moved a draft resolution demanding evaluation of the World Health Organisation (WHO)'s response towards the novel coronavirus pandemic.

The European Union-led draft resolution on global COVID-19 response is set to be tabled at the upcoming World Health Assembly on Monday.

The draft resolution demands initiation "at the earliest appropriate moment to review experience gained and lessons learned from the WHO-coordinated international health response to COVID-19".

"We are deeply concerned by the morbidity and mortality caused by COVID-19 pandemic, the negative impacts on physical and mental health and social well-being, the negative impacts on economy and society and the consequent exacerbation of inequalities within and between countries," read the draft.

"We express solidarity to all countries affected by the pandemic, as well as condolences and sympathy to all the families of the victims of COVID-19," it added.

The resolution says timelines are to be evaluated regarding "recommendations the WHO made to improve global pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response capacity".

The WHO on January 23 declare a global health emergency, but did not declare it and waited for a week for its director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus to return from China.

By that time, COVID-19 cases increased 10 times and the virus entered 18 countries.

According to Health Policy Watch, till as late as February, the WHO did not support countries for imposing travel restrictions to China.

"When countries began evacuating their citizens from Wuhan, the COVID-19 epicentre, the WHO said it did not favour this step".

The WHO finally declared it a pandemic on March 11.

The global health body has come under criticism not just from the US for its response being "China-centric".

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
April 2,2020

Chandigarh, April 2: A 59-year-old woman and her 10-month-old granddaughter have tested positive for novel coronavirus in Chandigarh on Thursday.

According to the Chandigarh Health Department, they are family contacts of the NRI couple that tested positive for COVID-19 earlier.
With this, the total cases in the Union Territory rose to 18.

The total number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in the country climbed to 1,965 on Thursday, after as many as 328 new cases were reported, said the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. So far, at least 50 people have lost their lives due to the virus.

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.
Agencies
July 23,2020

Expressing concern over the ban imposed on TikTok by the government of India, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has reportedly called the development in the south Asian country “worrisome”.

TikTok was amongst the 59 Chinese apps that were banned in India but why it hogs the maximum limelight because TikTok had the second-largest user base in India with over 200 million users.

As per The Verge writer Casey Newton, Zuckerberg was worried about TikTok’s India ban. Although it soon cashed into the opportunity and released a TikTok clone “Reels”, the government’s reason behind banning the app in India wasn’t received well by Mark Zuckerberg. 

He had said that if India can ban a platform with over 200 million users in India without citing concrete reasons, it can also ban Facebook if something goes amiss on the security and privacy front.

Why Mark finds it particularly worrisome because Facebook is already involved in a lot tussle with the governments across the world involving national security concerns. 

“Facebook already faces fights around the world from governments on both the left and the right related to issues that fit under the broad umbrella of national security: election interference, influence campaigns, hate speech, and even just plain-old democratic speech. Zuckerberg knows that the leap from banning TikTok on national security grounds to banning Facebook on national security grounds is more of a short hop,” the report by Casey read.

Facebook till now has not faced any kind of issue in India but considering the debacle with the other governments, it is not entirely wrong to worry about its future in India if any national security issue arises. Back in 2016, Facebook’s Free Basics service, which means a free but restricted internet service, was banned in India by the telecom regulators. 

The TRAI had said that the Free Basic services were banned in India because it violated the principles of net neutrality. With Free Basics services, Facebook had planned to bring more unconnected users online. But since 2016, there has been no major tussle between the Indian government and Zuckerberg due to national security issues.

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.