Some women level allegations for money: Udit Raj on #MeToo

New Delhi, Feb 27: An Indian Air Force aircraft on Thursday evacuated 76 Indians and 36 foreign nationals from the coronavirus-hit Chinese city of Wuhan.

The C-17 Globemaster III transport aircraft was sent to Wuhan on Wednesday and it carried 15 tonnes of medical supplies for coronavirus-affected people in China.

On its return, the aircraft brought back 112 people, including 23 citizens from Bangladesh, six from China, two each from Myanmar and the Maldives and one each from South Africa, the US and Madagascar.

Earlier, India had evacuated around 650 Indians from Wuhan in two Air India flights.

“In all 723 Indian nationals and 43 foreign nationals have been evacuated from Wuhan, China, in these three flights,” the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said.

On the medical supplies delivered by India to China, the MEA said they would help augment the country’s efforts to control the coronavirus outbreak which had been declared as a public health emergency by the World Health Organisation.

“The assistance is also a mark of friendship and solidarity from the people of India towards the people of China as the two countries also celebrate 70th anniversary of establishment of diplomatic relations this year,” it said.

New Delhi, Feb 29: Former Union Minister M J Akbar told a Delhi court on Friday that journalist Priya Ramani had defamed him by calling him with adjectives such as 'media's biggest predator' in the wake of #MeToo movement in 2018 that harmed his reputation.

M J Akbar made the allegations before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vishal Pahuja through his lawyer during the final hearing of a private criminal defamation complaint filed by him against Priya Ramani. Akbar resigned as Union minister on October 17, 2018.

Ramani in 2018 accused Akbar of sexual misconduct around 20 years ago when he was a journalist.

Senior advocate Geeta Luthra, appearing for Akbar, said that the allegations were intentional and malafide.

“When you call someone media's biggest predator, it is per se defamatory. Calling a person with such adjectives is on the face of it defamatory. In the eyes of the people, Akbar's reputation was harmed... The per se effect was lowering of my (Akbar) reputation in the eyes of the right thinking members of the society,” she told the court.

She said there was no due process in the allegations. “It has a cascading effect. Embarrassing questions were asked. I (Akbar) am a person of greatest integrity... There was no due process in the allegations. You cannot just make allegation and let that person suffer,” she added.

Luthra said that if there was any grievance, it had to be raised then and there before the appropriate authority.

“We need to realise the effect has what we say or what we do. It's not like she went to any authority or raised any grievance. Opportunity was there, rights were there but to attack so person behind their back on social media...knowing that his whole life will be adversely affected? It's not right,” she said.

M J Akbar has denied all the allegations of sexual harassment against the women who came forward during #MeToo campaign against him.

Akbar had earlier told the court that the allegations made in an article in the 'Vogue' and the subsequent tweets were defamatory on the face of it as the complainant had deposed them to be false and imaginary and that an “immediate damage” was caused to him due to the “false” allegations by Priya Ramani.

Ramani had earlier told the court that her “disclosure” of alleged sexual harassment by Akbar has come at “a great personal cost” and she had “nothing to gain” from it.

She had said her move would empower women to speak up and make them understand their rights at workplace.

Several women came up with accounts of the alleged sexual harassment by M J Akbar him while they were working as journalists under him.

He has termed the allegations “false, fabricated and deeply distressing” and said he was taking appropriate legal action against them.

Lucknow, May 25: Migrant workers who wish to return to their places of work after the lockdown is lifted, may no longer find the going easy now.

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has said that his government will lay down stringent conditions for ensuring social security of workers from the state who are hired by other states.

"Other states will also need to seek permission from his government before engaging workers from UP," he said while addressing a webinar on Sunday.

The Chief Minister stated, "If any state wants manpower, the state government will have to guarantee social security and insurance of the workers. Without our permission they will not be able to take our people," he said.

He said all migrant workers who have returned to the state were being registered and their skills were being mapped by the administration. Any state or entity interested in hiring them will need to take care of their social, legal and monetary rights.

Speaking about the challenges his administration had faced during this crisis, the Chief Minister said, "When I talk of Uttar Pradesh, then it is natural to say that it is the state with the highest population. We have faced several challenges during the lockdown. At the beginning, migrant workers and labourers started coming to the state. We deployed 16,000 buses and within 24 hours, they were brought back to their home districts and arrangements were made to screen them."

Yogi Adityanath took a dig at the opposition leaders for the migrant crisis. "During the lockdown, if those who now raise slogans for the poor had honestly cared about workers, then migration could have been stopped. This did not happen. No facilities were given. At several places, electricity connections were cut, so people had to migrate." he said.

Legal experts, meanwhile said that requiring government permission for employing people could face a legal challenge as the Constitution guarantees the freedom of movement and residence and employment of workers.

"Article 19 (1)(D) guarantees freedom to move freely, and 19(1)(e) the freedom to settled in any part of the countryso the need for permission can be legally challenged," said a senior lawyer.