Yes Bank: BJP, Congress lock horns over M F Hussain painting sold by Priyanka Gandhi to Rana Kapoor

Mangaluru, May 4: No major crowds were seen in the coastal city of Mangaluru today except in front of the liquor shops after the district administration relaxed the lockdown norms for 12 hours a day (between 7am and 7pm).

There was no mad rush of vehicles either on city roads when the relaxed lockdown began. There were fewer people to buy essentials in front of grocery and vegetable shops as they had time till late evening.

There was no let down in the number of police pickets as well as curbs on vehicular movement across the city either. 

The government has allowed sale of liquor in CL2 (standalone wine shops) and CL 11 (MSIL outlets) to mop up revenues when Lockdown-3 commenced from Monday. Compared the other parts of Karnataka, the size of queues in front of liquor shops in Mangaluru were smaller. 

Like other parts of the country, the lockdown was imposed in the coastal district on March 24 to prevent the spread of Covid-19. Prior to that, a curfew was imposed in the district from March 22 midnight. The lockdown did not apply to essential services such as sale of food, groceries, milk, vegetables, fruits, and meat and fish. Gradually the district administration had to intensify the lockdown and allow those shops to remain open only between 7 a.m. and 12 noon. 

With the lockdown relaxation extending till 7 p.m., Mangaluru today witnessed people and private vehicles moving freely in the afternoon for the first time in more than a month. However, only those who had to go for work and do other essential activities were seen on roads. After 7 p.m. movements of all kinds of vehicles will be prohibited. 

The relaxation was to facilitate economic activities that had come to a standstill during the first two phases of lockdown. Mangaluru City Police Commissioner Dr P S Harsha, meanwhile, warned the people against misusing lockdown relaxation and venturing out without any genuine reason.

Meerut, Jan 8: Hangman Pawan Jallad, who officials say is being considered to carry out the execution of the four Nirbhaya gangrape case convicts, on Tuesday said he is ready for the job which will send out a strong message in the society.

He said executing those who were involved in the horrific crime will bring "great relief" to him, Nirbhaya's parents and everybody else.

Earlier in the day, a Delhi court issued death warrants against all the four convicts in the Nirbhaya gangrape-murder case and ordered that they are hanged on January 22 at 7 am in Tihar jail.

The death warrant, also known as a black warrant, addressed to the office of the Tihar jail chief, was issued by Additional Sessions Judge Satish Kumar Arora against Mukesh (32), Pawan Gupta (25), Vinay Sharma (26) and Akshay Kumar Singh (31).

"I do not have any information regarding the execution, nobody has spoken to me yet. If anyone approaches me, I am ready to do the job. Earlier, I was asked to be ready for the execution on December 16," Pawan Jallad told reporters here.

"Those who were involved in this brutal incident must be hanged, which will send out a strong message in the society," he said.

"Hanging the Nirbhaya gangrape case convicts will certainly bring great relief to me, her parents and everybody else," he added.

Nirbhaya, a 23-year-old paramedic student, was gang-raped and brutalised on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012, inside a moving bus in south Delhi by the four men, along with two others, before being dumped on the road.

She died on December 29, 2012, at Mount Elizabeth Hospital in Singapore.

Of the six persons convicted, one allegedly committed suicide in jail and another, a juvenile, was released from a reformation home after serving a three-year term.

When contacted, Jail Superintendent of Meerut prison V P Pandey said he has not yet received any letter from Tihar authorities.

"Last month, we had received a letter asking us to keep Pawan Jallad ready but there is no fresh communication. The Delhi court warrants were issued this evening, maybe we will get the letter for sending him by tomorrow (Wednesday)," he said.

The gangrape of 23-year-old, who came to be known as 'Nirbhaya', the fearless one, sparked outrage across the country. Repulsed, people took to the streets across the country, demanding justice for her and better safety measures for women.

The case led to toughening of India's rape laws.

Chennai, Mar 3: The Madras High Court has ruled that if a working woman gives birth to a child in the second delivery after twins in the first, she is not entitled to maternity benefits as it should be treated as third child.

"As per existing rules, a woman can avail such benefits only for her first two deliveries. Even otherwise it is debatable as to whether the delivery is not a second delivery but a third one, in as much as ordinarily when twins are born they are delivered one after another, and their age and their inter-se elderly status is also determined by virtue of the gap of time between their arrivals, which amounts to two deliveries and not one simultaneous act," the court said.

The first bench, comprising Chief Justice A P Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad stated this while allowing the appeal from Ministry of Home Affairs.

It set aside the order June 18 2019 order of a single Judge, who extended 180 days of maternity leave and other benefits to a woman member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) under the rules governing the Tamil Nadu government servants.

The issue pertains to an appeal moved by the ministry, which contended that the leave claim is by a member of CISF to whom the maternity rules of Tamil Nadu would not apply.

She would be covered by the maternity benefits as provided under the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, the ministry said.

When the appeal came up for hearing, the bench said it found that a second delivery, which, in the present case, resulted in a third child, cannot be interpreted so as to add to the mathematical precision that is defined in the rules.

The admissibility of benefits would be limited if the claimant has not more than two children, the bench said "This fact therefore changes the entire nature of the relief which is sought for by the woman petitioner, which aspect has been completely overlooked by the single judge", the bench said.