Supreme Court summons chiefs of CBI, IB, Delhi police in CJI sexual harassment case

Jun 12: There have been complaints of non-availability of beds or denial of treatment to coronavirus patients in the national capital despite nearly 70 per cent of beds in five designated hospitals run by the Delhi government lying vacant, with experts attributing it to people''s aversion towards state-run facilities.

As per the latest information shared on the Delhi Corona app on Thursday afternoon, more than 3,000 beds are lying vacant in these five dedicated COVID-19 hospitals that have a total capacity of 4,344 beds.

However, almost all beds at several big private hospitals are shown to be occupied.

Families of many COVID-19 patients, confirmed or suspected, have alleged in the past few weeks that they have been denied admission at many facilities or have not been able to get a bed for their kin.

Medical and public health experts feel it may be because of the image associated with government hospitals, related to infrastructure and hygiene conditions, and perhaps shortage of staff.

According to the latest data available on Delhi Corona app on Thursday afternoon, a total of 9,444 beds are available in private facilities and hospitals run by the central and Delhi governments. Out of these, 4,371 are vacant.

The app shows that beds are available at Delhi government-run hospitals dedicated for COVID-19 treatment such as LNJP Hospital (1,219), GTB Hospital (1,314), Rajiv Gandhi Super Speciality Hospital or RGSSH (242).

However, almost all beds at several big private hospitals are shown to be occupied.

At LNJP Hospital, there are a total of 2,000 beds, out of these 781 are occupied. GTB Hospital has total 1,500 beds, only 186 of which are occupied. Even at RGSSH, 258 of the 500 beds are occupied.

Beds are available at other dedicated COVID-19 facilities in the national capital too, according to the app. Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital has 94 unoccupied beds out of a total 176 and Satyawadi Raja Harishchandra Hospital has 145 vacant beds out of a total 168.

This makes a total of 4,344 COVID-19 beds at these five dedicated Delhi government hospitals, out of which 3,014 or 69.38 per cent are vacant.

A senior doctor at the RGSSH said, "We are only admitting very serious COVID-19 patients in the hospital. Those with mild symptoms, or asymptomatic ones, are either being home quarantined or being sent to COVID Care Centres. Our beds are on stand-by also to accommodate serious patients in case there is a sudden rush."

Delhi Heath Minster Satyendar Jain had recently said that some private hospitals could have been denying admission, but the Delhi government-run hospitals have not denied beds to any needy COVID-19 patient.

He had also said that main private hospitals are almost full to their capacity in terms of number of COVID-19 beds.

According to the app, at prominent private hospitals like Indraprastha Apollo, Max Hospital in Shalimar Bagh, Fortis Hospital in Shalimar Bagh, BL Kapur Hospital are fully occupied.

Max Hospital in Saket has a total of 200 beds for COVID-19 patients, and only one is vacant.

On June 9, the Delhi government had directed 22 private hospitals in the national capital to dedicate a total of 2,015 extra beds for treatment of coronavirus patients, revising its earlier allocation limit of 20 per cent.

Lawyer and public heath activist Ashok Agarwal said infrastructure and hygiene are two main factors, and people still want to "avoid government facilities".

"I know of cases, where people were willing to be on waiting list of private hospitals but did not go to a government hospital, even though beds were available," he said.

Even those who went to a government hospital for COVID-19 treatment, complained of "dirty toilets, and these being used by multiple patients", Agarwal said.

"Also, as the cases erupted successively over the months, many people got scared and were in two minds to go to a government hospital, as admitted patients were making allegations in videos and on social media about lack of proper services. Besides, there is shortage of medical staff at various facilities, and each patient needs to be attended to," he argued.

Delhi government hospitals and private facilities were directed to prominently display information about the availability of beds on a flex board at their main gates.

Delhi Lt Governor Anil Baijal on Wednesday ordered Delhi hospitals to display the availability of COVID and non-COVID beds, charges for rooms or beds along with contact details on a LED board outside the hospital.

Max Hospital sources said they were already displaying the status of beds on LED screens near their reception area even before the government order.

A spokesperson from Fortis Hospital said, "We are in the process of arranging to put up the displays as per the prescribed format."

Delhi recorded 1,501 fresh coronavirus cases on Wednesday, taking the COVID-19 tally in the city to over 32,000, and the death toll due to the disease mounted to 984, authorities said.

New Delhi, Jan 5: Senior Congress leader P Chidambaram on Sunday sàid it was "shameful" that Sadaf Jafar, SR Darapuri and Pavan Rao were arrested by the Uttar Pradesh Police for violence without any evidence against them.

He also said that it was a shocking admission by the police that there is no evidence of their involvement.

"Sadaf Jafar, S R Darapuri and Pavan Rao Ambedkar released on bail after police ADMITTED no evidence of their involvement in violence. Shocking admission," he said on Twitter.

"If that were so, why did the police arrest them in the first place? And how did the Magistrate remand them to custody without looking at the evidence," he asked.
"The law says 'find evidence, then arrest'. The reality is 'first arrest, then search for evidence'. Shameful," Chidambaram tweeted.

Mar 3: Just hours after the ending of a week-long “reduction” in violence that was crucial for Donald Trump’s peace deal in Afghanistan, the Taliban struck again: On Monday, they killed three people and injured about a dozen at a football match in Khost province. This resumption of violence will not surprise anyone actually invested in peace for that troubled country. The point of the U.S.-Taliban deal was never peace. It was to try and cover up an ignominious exit for the U.S., driven by an election-bound president who feels no responsibility toward that country or to the broader region.

Seen from South Asia, every point we know about in the agreement is a concession by Trump to the Taliban. Most importantly, it completes a long-term effort by the U.S. to delegitimize the elected government in Kabul — and, by extension, Afghanistan’s constitution. Afghanistan’s president is already balking at releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners before intra-Afghan talks can begin — a provision that his government did not approve.

One particularly cringe-worthy aspect: The agreement refers to the Taliban throughout  as “the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan that is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban.” This unwieldy nomenclature validates the Taliban’s claim to be a government equivalent to the one in Kabul, just not the one recognised at the moment by the U.S. When read together with the second part of the agreement, which binds the U.S. to not “intervene in [Afghanistan’s] domestic affairs,” the point is obvious: The Taliban is not interested in peace, but in ensuring that support for its rivals is forbidden, and its path to Kabul is cleared.

All that the U.S. has effectively gotten in return is the Taliban’s assurance that it will not allow the soil of Afghanistan to be used against the “U.S. and its allies.” True, the U.S. under Trump has shown a disturbing willingness to trust solemn assurances from autocrats; but its apparent belief in promises made by a murderous theocratic movement is even more ridiculous. Especially as the Taliban made much the same promise to an Assistant Secretary of State about Osama bin Laden while he was in the country plotting 9/11.

Nobody in the region is pleased with this agreement except for the Taliban and their backers in the Pakistani military. India has consistently held that the legitimate government in Kabul must be the basic anchor of any peace plan. Ordinary Afghans, unsurprisingly, long for peace — but they are, by all accounts, deeply skeptical about how this deal will get them there. The brave activists of the Afghan Women’s Network are worried that intra-Afghan talks will take place without adequate representation of the country’s women — who have, after all, the most to lose from a return to Taliban rule.

But the Pakistani military establishment is not hiding its glee. One retired general tweeted: “Big victory for Afghan Taliban as historic accord signed… Forced Americans to negotiate an accord from the position of parity. Setback for India.” Pakistan’s army, the Taliban’s biggest backer, longs to re-install a friendly Islamist regime in Kabul — and it has correctly estimated that, after being abandoned by Trump, the Afghan government will have sharply reduced bargaining power in any intra-Afghan peace talks. A deal with the Taliban that fails also to include its backers in the Pakistani military is meaningless.

India, meanwhile, will not see this deal as a positive for regional peace or its relationship with the U.S. It comes barely a week after Trump’s India visit, which made it painfully clear that shared strategic concerns are the only thing keeping the countries together. New Delhi remembers that India is not, on paper, a U.S. “ally.” In that respect, an intensification of terrorism targeting India, as happened the last time the U.S. withdrew from the region, would not even be a violation of Trump’s agreement. One possible outcome: Over time the government in New Delhi, which has resolutely sought to keep its ties with Kabul primarily political, may have to step up security cooperation. Nobody knows where that would lead.

The irresponsible concessions made by the U.S. in this agreement will likely disrupt South Asia for years to come, and endanger its own relationship with India going forward. But worst of all, this deal abandons those in Afghanistan who, under the shadow of war, tried to develop, for the first time, institutions that work for all Afghans. No amount of sanctimony about “ending America’s longest war” should obscure the danger and immorality of this sort of exit.