I supported Mulayam when no one supported him, Shahid Siddiqui says

July 29, 2012

Shahid_Siddiqui

New Delhi, July 29: Former MP and expelled Samajwadi Party leader Shahid Siddiqui on Sunday cried foul over his removal from the party.

Reacting over his dismissal for conducting an Urdu interview with controversial Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi, Siddiqui said that Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav owed a lot of his popularity to him, as Siddiqui had written in his support at a time when no other publication had.

"Mulayam Singhji has been in politics for the last 40 years, and I have written a lot supporting him. My paper - Nai Duniya - has worked when nobody was supporting Mulayam Singhji in 1983, when he took out his first 'yatra' (journey). It was my paper which worked and wrote for Mulayam Singhji, and I have never asked him for any favour," he said.

Siddiqui, who is the editor of Urdu weekly 'Nai Duniya', said that the Samajwadi Party's stance on the Modi interview was disrespectful of the freedom of the press, and that no party in his two decades of political life, had restricted his journalistic freedom.

"This is like shooting the messenger, and this attitude of the Samajwadi Party is not only laughable, but also a disrespect for any kind of freedom, not only freedom within the party, but even the freedom of expression and the freedom of the press. I have been in politics for the last 20 years, and I have been in journalism for the last 40 years, but no party ever stopped me from doing my journalistic work," he said.

Going on to claim that he had written against former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi even when he was a member of the Congress, and had not drawn a vindictive reaction in return, Siddiqui added that just because he interviewed Modi did not mean that he supported the latter.

"I have opposed Modi tooth and nail all my life, and I oppose him even now. Interviewing somebody does not mean supporting that person. This shows that you are naive, you do not understand journalism, you do not understand what freedom is, and people who have this kind of attitude are, in fact, a threat to democracy if they are allowed to get away with this kind of attitude," Siddiqui said.

Siddiqui started his political career with the Congress, moving on to the Samajwadi Party, followed by stints with the Bahujan Samaj Party ( BSP) and the Rashtriya Janata Dal ( RJD), before returning to the SP fold in January 2012, his latest spell lasting well under a year.

Modi raised hackles when he refused to apologise for the Gujarat riots on the contention it would be an acknowledgement of his complicity.

Modi has led Gujarat for over a decade, and there are speculations of his seeking a larger role in national politics.


Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
May 6,2020

New Delhi, May 6: The death toll due to COVID-19 rose to 1,694 and the number of cases climbed to 49,391 in the country on Wednesday, registering an increase of 126 deaths and 2,958 cases in the last 24 hours, the Union Health Ministry said.

The number of active COVID-19 cases is 33,514. A total of 13,160 people have recovered and one patient has migrated, it said.

"Thus, around 28.71 per cent patients have recovered so far," a senior health ministry official said.

The total number of cases include 111 foreign nationals.

A total of 111 deaths were reported since Tuesday evening, of which 49 fatalities were reported from Gujarat, 34 from Maharashtra, 12 from Rajasthan, seven from West Bengal, three from Uttar Pradesh, two each from Punjab and Tamil Nadu and one each from Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh, the ministry said.

Of the 1,694 fatalities, Maharashtra tops the tally with 617 fatalities. Gujarat comes second with 368 deaths, followed by Madhya Pradesh at 176, West Bengal at 140, Rajasthan at 89, Delhi at 64, Uttar Pradesh at 56 and Andhra Pradesh at 36.

The death toll reached 33 in Tamil Nadu, 29 in Telengana, while Karnataka has reported 29 fatalities.

Punjab has registered 25 COVID-19 deaths, Jammu and Kashmir eight, Haryana six and Kerala and Bihar four deaths each.

Jharkhand has recorded three COVID-19 fatalities.

Meghalaya, Chandigarh, Himachal Pradesh, Odisha, Assam and Uttarakhand have reported one fatality each, according to the ministry data.

According to the health ministry data updated in the morning, the highest number of confirmed cases in the country are from Maharashtra at 15, 525, followed by Gujarat at 6,245, Delhi at 5,104, Tamil Nadu at 4,058, Rajasthan at 3,158, Madhya Pradesh at 3,049 and Uttar Pradesh at 2,880.

The number of COVID-19 cases has gone up to 1,717 in Andhra Pradesh and 1,451 in Punjab.

It has risen to 1,344 in West Bengal, 1,096 in Telengana, 741 in Jammu and Kashmir, 671 in Karnataka, 548 in Haryana and 536 in Bihar.

Kerala has reported 502 coronavirus cases so far, while Odisha has 175 cases. A total of 125 people have been infected with the virus in Jharkhand and 111 in Chandigarh.

Uttarakhand has reported 61 cases, Chhattisgarh 59 cases, Assam 43, Himachal Pradesh 42 and Ladakh 41.

Thirty-three COVID-19 cases have been reported from the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

Tripura has registered 43 cases, Meghalaya has reported 12 and Puducherry nine, while Goa has seven COVID-19 cases.

Manipur has two cases. Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh and Dadar and Nagar Haveli have reported a case each.

"Our figures are being reconciled with the ICMR," the ministry said on its website.

State-wise distribution is subject to further verification and reconciliation, it said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
February 5,2020

New Delhi, Feb 5: Following is the chronology of events in the 2012 Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case in which the Delhi High Court on Wednesday said the all the four convicts have to be hanged together, not separately.

- Dec 16, 2012: Paramedical student gang-raped and brutally assaulted by six men in a private bus and thrown out of the moving vehicle along with her male friend. The victims admitted to Safdarjung Hospital.

- Dec 17: Widespread protests erupt demanding stringent action.

- Police identify the accused - bus driver Ram Singh, his brother Mukesh Kumar, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Gupta.

- Dec 18: Ram Singh and three others arrested.

- Dec 20: Victim's friend testifies.

- Dec 21: A delinquent juvenile nabbed from Anand Vihar bus terminal in Delhi. Victim's friend identifies Mukesh as one of the culprits. Police conduct raids in Haryana and Bihar to nab the sixth accused, Akshay Kumar.

- Dec 21-22: Akshay arrested in Aurangabad district of Bihar and brought to Delhi. Victim records statement before the SDM in hospital.

- Dec 26: Following a cardiac arrest, victim flown to Singapore's Mount Elizabeth Hospital by the government.

- Dec 29: Victim succumbs to injuries and other medical conditions. Police add murder charge in the FIR.

- Jan 2, 2013: The then Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir inaugurates fast track court (FTC) for speedy trial in sexual offence cases.

- Jan 3: Police file charge sheet against five adults accused of murder, gang-rape, attempt to murder, kidnapping, unnatural offences and dacoity.

- Jan 17: FTC starts proceedings against the five adult accused.

- Jan 28: Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) says minority of the juvenile accused is proved.

- Feb 2: FTC frames charges against five adult accused.

- Feb 28: JJB frames charges against the minor.

- Mar 11: Ram Singh commits suicide in Tihar Jail.

- Jul 8: FTC completes recording of testimonies of prosecution witnesses.

- Jul 11: Delhi High Court allows three international news agencies to cover the trial in the case.

- Aug 22: FTC begins hearing final arguments in trial against four adult accused.

- Aug 31: JJB convicts the minor for gang-rape and murder and awards three-year term at probation home.

- Sep 3: FTC concludes trial. Reserves verdict.

- Sep 10: Court convicts Mukesh, Vinay, Akshay, Pawan of 13 offences including gang-rape, unnatural offence and murder of the girl and attempt to murder her male friend.

- Sep 13: Court awards death penalty to all 4 convicts.

- Sep 23: HC begins hearing the convicts' death sentence reference sent to it by the trial court.

- Jan 3, 2014: HC reserves verdict on convicts' appeals.

- Mar 13: HC upholds death penalty to the 4 convicts.

- Mar 15: SC stays execution of 2 convicts, Mukesh and Pawan, after they file appeals. Later, stays execution of other convicts also.

- Apr 15: SC directs police to produce the dying declaration of the victim.

- Feb 3, 2017: SC says it would hear afresh the aspect of awarding death penalty to the convicts.

- Mar 27: SC reserves verdict on their appeals.

- May 5: SC upholds death penalty to four convicts, says the case falls under the category of 'rarest of rare' and the offence created "tsunami of shock".

- Nov 8: Mukesh, one of the four death row convicts in the case, moves SC seeking review of its verdict upholding the capital punishment awarded to him.

- Dec 12: Delhi Police opposes Mukesh's plea in SC.

- Dec 15: Convicts Vinay Sharma and Pawan Kumar Gupta move SC for review of its verdict.

- May 4, 2018: SC reserves order on review plea of Vinay and Pawan.

- Jul 9: SC dismisses review pleas of three convicts.

- Feb, 2019: Victim's parents move Delhi court for issuance of death warrants of the four convicts

- Dec 10, 2019: Akshay moves plea in SC seeking review of his death penalty.

- Dec 13: Victim's mother moves SC opposing review plea of convict

- Dec 18: SC dismisses Akshay's review plea.

- Delhi govt seeks death warrants for execution of death sentence to the 4 convicts

- Delhi court directs Tihar authorities to issue notice to convicts to avail their remaining legal remedies.

- Dec 19: Delhi HC dismisses plea of Pawan Kumar Gupta claiming he was a juvenile at the time of the offence.

- Jan 6, 2020: Delhi court dismisses complaint filed by Pawan's father seeking FIR against sole witness

- Jan 7: Delhi court orders 4 convicts to be hanged on January 22 at 7 am in Tihar jail.

- Jan 14: SC rejects curative petition of Vinay and Mukesh Kumar.

Mukesh files mercy petition before President

- Jan 17: President Ram Nath Kovind rejects mercy plea of Mukesh.

- Trial court issues death warrants again with execution date as February 1, 6 am.

- Jan 25: Mukesh moves SC against rejection of mercy plea.

- Jan 28: SC hears arguments, reserves verdict

- Jan 29: Convict Akshya Kumar approaches SC with curative petition

- SC rejects plea of Mukesh challenging rejection of his mercy plea.

- Jan 30: SC dismisses curative plea of Akshay Kumar Singh.

- Jan 31: SC dismisses plea filed by Pawan seeking review of its order rejecting his juvenility claim.

- Delhi court again postpones execution of the black warrants till further order.

- Feb 1: Centre moves HC against the trial court order.

- Feb 2: HC reserves judgement on Centre's plea.

- Feb 5: HC dismisses Centre plea against trial court order; says all 4 convicts have to be hanged together. It directs the convicts to pursue all legal remedies within a week, failing which the authorities ordered to take action in accordance with law.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
July 24,2020

New Delhi, Jul 24: The Delhi High Court on Friday asked the ICMR to come out with a clarification that mobile number, government-issued identity card, photographs or even a residential proof ought not to be insisted upon for Covid-19 test of mentally ill homeless persons.

According to an Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) advisory of June 19, every person who was to be tested for Covid-19 has to provide a government-issued identity proof and should have a valid phone number for tracing and tracking the individual and his/her contacts.

A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan said that ICMR should issue a clarification by way of a circular or an official order that the identity proof, address proof and mobile number are not required for testing mentally ill homeless persons.

The high court said a camp can be organised for testing such persons as is being done across Delhi for others.

"Guidelines have to be given by you (ICMR). You put it in black and white for the states'' benefit. You only need to clarify in two-three lines that mobile number, address proof and identity cards are not required for testing mentally ill homeless persons," it said.

"Use your powers for the public at large. Once you do so (issue the clarification), all states will comply," the bench added.

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for ICMR, sought time to take instructions from the government regarding the observations made by the bench.

The high court, thereafter, listed the matter for further hearing on August 7.

The bench was hearing a PIL moved by advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal seeking directions to ICMR and Delhi government to issue guidelines for Covid-19 testing of mentally ill homeless persons in the national capital.

Coronavirus India update: State-wise total number of confirmed cases, deaths on July 24

The high court on July 9 had asked the ICMR to consider the plight of the mentally ill homeless persons and see whether they can be tested without insisting upon a mobile number, government issue identity card and residential address proof.

The bench had said to ICMR that many homeless mentally ill persons are institutionalised or in shelter homes and therefore, traceable, so there was no need for their identity proof or phone numbers to test them for Covid-19.

In response to the court''s query, ICMR has filed an affidavit stating that the purpose behind the submission of government identity card and telephone number was to ensure proper tracking and treatment of positive cases and their contacts as ''Test/Track/Treat'' is the best strategy for control of Covid-19 pandemic. 

It further said that since health was a state subject, the concerned state health authority may consider adopting a suitable protocol to ensure that the strategy of ''Test/Track/Treat'' is followed and the grievance raised in the PIL is also addressed.

ICMR, in its affidavit, has said that it has only advised facilitating contact tracing as well as tracking of the Covid-19 infected patients.

"The modalities regarding the contact tracing as well as tracking of the Covid-19 infected patients completely falls under the domain of IDSP. NCDC and state health authorities. 

"ICMR is a research organization and the contact tracing, as well as tracking of the Covid-19 infected patients, is not under the domain of ICMR," it has said in its affidavit.

Bansal has claimed in his petition that the Delhi government has not taken seriously the lack of guidelines with respect to Covid-19 testing of mentally ill homeless persons.

Coronavirus Worldometer | 15 countries with the highest number of cases, deaths due to the Covid-19 pandemic

He has said the high court had on June 9 directed it to address the grievances raised by him in another PIL with regard to mentally ill homeless persons in accordance with law, rules, regulations and government policy.

He said that on June 13 he also sent a representation to the Chief Secretary of Delhi government for providing treatment to mentally ill homeless persons in the national capital who have no residence proof. 

However, nothing was done by the Delhi government, he had told the court.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.