Mangaluru: Justice Abdul Nazeer calls upon advocates to uphold justice

Bengaluru, Jun 11: Most COVID-19 deaths in Karnataka occur when infected elderly people, those with Severe Acute Respiratory Illness (SARI) or any other symptoms delay reaching designated hospitals, a top official said.

Munish Moudgil, chief of COVID-19 War Room in the state, said most of those infected with the virus are brought to COVID-19 designated hospitals at a very late stage and recovery then becomes extremely tough.

He said about 65 per cent of those killed suffered from SARI and are aged above 60.

The death rate due to SARI is 43 per cent for those in the 40-60 age group, he said, releasing data on coronavirus deaths, to reporters.

In the same age group, the mortality due to Influenza Like Illness (ILI) was 17.4 per cent, whereas it is 11.1 per cent among people aged above 60 .

He said 25 per cent of symptomatic patients aged above 60 die due to the virus, while it was 10.7 per cent in the 40-60 age group.

The fatalities among those aged 60 is high even if they are asymptomatic, Mr Moudgil, who is secretary in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, said.

He said the average number of days spent at these hospitals by those who recovered is about 15 days, compared to 3.5 days for those who died of the virus.

Listen to the latest songs, only on JioSaavn.com

"Hence persons who are elderly and who have comorbidities or who have SARI must reach designated Covid hospitals at the earliest," Mr Moudgil said.

As of date, Karnataka has reported 69 COVID-19 deaths As many as 6,041 people have tested positive for COVID-19, including 2,862 discharges and 3,108 active cases.

New Delhi, Jan 19: Senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal on Sunday asserted that every state assembly has the constitutional right to pass a resolution and seek the amended Citizenship Act's withdrawal, but if the law is declared constitutional by the Supreme Court then it will be problematic to oppose it.

His remarks came a day after he had said there is no way a state can deny the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) when it is already passed by the Parliament.

"I believe the CAA is unconstitutional. Every State Assembly has the constitutional right to pass a resolution and seek its withdrawal. When and if the law is declared to be constitutional by the Supreme Court then it will be problematic to oppose it. The fight must go on!" Sibal said in a tweet.

His remarks on the CAA at the Kerala Literature Festival (KLF) on Saturday had caused a flutter as several non-BJP governments, including Kerala, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal and Maharashtra, have voiced their disagreement with the CAA as well as National Register of Citizens (NRC) and National Population Register (NPR).

"If the CAA is passed no state can say 'I will not implement it'. It is not possible and is unconstitutional. You can oppose it, you can pass a resolution in the Assembly and ask the central government to withdraw it.

"But constitutionally saying that I won't implement, it is going to be problematic and going to create more difficulties," said the former minister of law and justice.

New Delhi, Mar 6: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking framing of a proper mechanism to deal with alleged misuse of the sedition law by the government machinery. A bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar dismissed the plea filed by a social activist and said it was open for the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority.

At the outset, the apex court told advocate Utsav Singh Bains, appearing for the petitioner, that he could not seek quashing of an FIR in a sedition case filed against the management of a Karnataka school for allegedly allowing students to stage an anti-CAA and anti-NRC drama.

Bains told the bench that he was not just pressing for a prayer to quash the FIR but the petitioner has also sought a direction for framing of a proper mechanism to deal with the alleged misuse of the sedition law.

"Let the affected party come and we will hear them. Why it should be done at your instance," the bench said, refusing to entertain the petition.

The petition had sought quashing of the FIR against the principal and other staff of the Shaheen School at Bidar who have been booked under sections 124A (sedition) and 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) of the Indian Penal Code.

The plea had also sought an apex court direction for a proper mechanism to deal with alleged government misuse of the sedition law.

Section 124A of the IPC says that "whoever brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards... the Government shall be punished with imprisonment for life...".

The plea had sought a direction to the Centre and the Karnataka government "to quash the FIR registered in connection of seditious charges against the school management, teacher and a widowed parent of a student for staging a play criticising CAA, NRC and NPR."

The petition had claimed that the police "also questioned students, and videos and screenshots of CCTV footage showing them speaking to the students were shared widely on social media, prompting criticism."

The drama was staged on January 21 by students of the fourth, the fifth and the sixth standard.

The sedition case was filed based on a complaint by social worker Neelesh Rakshyal on 26 January.

The complainant alleged that the school authorities "used" the students to perform a drama where they "abused" Modi in the context of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the National Register of Citizens.