SC seeks facts on visa cancellation of foreign nationals who attended Tablighi event

New Delhi, May 15: A group of doctors from the AIIMS, Raipur has recommended restrictions on the use of mobile phones in healthcare institutions amid the COVID-19 pandemic, warning that such devices can be a potential carrier of the virus and lead to infection among healthcare workers.

In a commentary published in the BMJ Global Health journal, the doctors stated that mobile phone surfaces are a peculiar 'high-risk' surface, which can directly come in contact with the face or mouth, even if hands are properly washed and one study indicates that some healthcare workers use phones every 15 minutes to two hours.

Though there have been many significant guidelines from various health organisations like the WHO and CDC focusing on prevention and control of disease, the commentary highlighted "there is no mention of or focus on mobile phones in these guidelines, including the WHO infection control and prevention guidelines, which recommends the use of handwashing".

In healthcare facilities, phones are used to communicate with other health care workers, look up recent medical guidelines, research drug interactions, understand adverse events and side effects, conduct telemedicine appointments and track patients among others, stated the document.

The document has been authored by Dr Vineet Kumar Pathak, Dr Sunil Kumar Panigrahi, Dr M Mohan Kumar, Dr Utsav Raj and Dr Karpaga Priya P from the Department of Community and Family Medicine.

"In their tendency to come in direct contact with the face, nose or eyes in healthcare settings, mobile phones are perhaps second only to masks, caps or goggles," the authors said.

"However, they are neither disposable nor washable like these other three, thus warranting disinfection. Mobile phones can effectively negate hand hygiene... There is growing evidence that mobile phones are a potential vector for pathogenic organisms," they said.

It is the need of the hour to address proper hygienic use of mobile phones in healthcare settings. In a study in India, almost 100 per cent of health workers of a tertiary care hospital used mobile phones in the hospital, but only 10 per cent of them had at any time wiped their mobile phones clean, the commentary published on April 22 said.

"The safest thing to do is to consider your phone as an extension of your hand, so remember you are transferring whatever is on your phone to your hand," Dr Pathak said.

Amidst the ongoing pandemic, two biggest mobile phone companies have uploaded their user support guidelines, saying that 70 pc isopropyl alcohol or Clorox Disinfecting Wipes can be used to gently wipe the exterior surface of phones in switched-off mode.

However, in doing so, the use of bleach or entry of moisture through any of the openings must be avoided, and any harsh chemical may damage the oleophobic screen, leading to damage in the touch screen sensitivity of the phone, the article stated.

Mobile phones are one of the most highly touched surfaces according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), along with counters, tabletops, doorknobs, bathroom fixtures, toilets, keyboards, tablets and bedside tables.

The doctors recommended restriction on mobile phone usage in healthcare settings like hospital wards, ICUs and operation theatres, while advocating the use of headphones to prevent contact with the face while talking.

There should be no sharing of mobile phones, headphones or headsets of any kind. In addition, where available, the use of interdepartmental intercom facility may be promoted.

"Although hand hygiene and mobile phone use by a person are not mutually exclusive, it is high time to acknowledge the potential role of mobile phones in disease transmission cascade and to take evidence-based appropriate actions. This is especially important, given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic," the authors said.

They said it is necessary for government agencies and the WHO to generate public awareness and to formulate suitable information, education and communication material on mobile phone hygiene, especially in healthcare settings.

AIIMS, New Delhi, Resident Doctors' Association (RDA) General Secretary, Dr Srinivas Rajkumar T said even outside health care settings, people should pay special attention to the usage of mobile phones as they carry them to all places.

"Phone and computer peripherals like keyboard, mouse, etc. should be covered with transparent plastic covers which can be cleaned without interfering with their function. Cleaning hands by soap or alcohol-based hand sanitizer before and after contact with phone and between contact with other surfaces can decrease the risk of potential transmission.

"Using a handsfree headset, dedicated operator/assistant per ward handling the communication via common line in hospitals while on duty can enable communication without compromising safety," Dr Srinivas said.

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.