PM Modi's wife Jashodaben suffers minor injuries in road accident, her driver killed

New Delhi, Jan 14: The Kerala government has challenged the new Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) before the Supreme Court, becoming the first state to do so amid nationwide protests against the religion-based citizenship law. The Supreme Court is already hearing over 60 petitions against the law.

Kerala's Left-led government in its petition calls the CAA a violation of several articles of the constitution including the right to equality and says the law goes against the basic principle of secularism in the constitution.

The Kerala government has also challenged the validity of changes made in 2015 to the Passport law and the Foreigners (Amendment) Order, regularising the stay of non-Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan who had entered India before 2015.

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), eases the path for non-Muslims in the neighbouring Muslim-majority nations of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh to become Indian citizens. Critics fear that the CAA, along with a proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC), will discriminate against Muslims.

The Kerala petition says the CAA violates Articles 14, 21 and 25 of the constitution.

While Article 14 is about the right to equality, Article 21 says "no person will be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law". Under Article 25, "all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience."

Several non-BJP governments have refused to carry out the NRC in an attempt to stave off the enforcement of the citizenship law.

Over 60 writ petitions have been filed in Supreme Court so far against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. Various political parties, NGOs and also MPs have challenged the law.

The Supreme Court will hear the petitions on January 22.

During the last hearing, petitioners didn't ask that the law be put on hold as the CAA was not in force. The Act has, however, come into force from January 10 through a home ministry notification.

Bengaluru, May 7: Karnataka has revised its standard operating procedure (SOP) for international passengers. The first group of passengers will arrive in the state on May 8.

The number of categories has been reduced to two from three. Category A includes passengers symptomatic on arrival while Category B passengers are those asymptomatic on arrival. These are passengers who are either healthy or those having co-morbidities.

As per the revised SOP, the passenger will be released on the seventh day, if tested negative, to strict home quarantine for another seven days with stamping.

This norm is in contradiction to the Ministry of Home Affairs’ SOP for international passengers. As per the MHA’s SOP, the passengers (asymptomatic) will be under institutional quarantine for 14 days. Testing negative after 14 days, they will be allowed to go home and will undertake self-monitoring of their health for 14 more days.

On the contradiction, Pandey said, "We don't take chances as we rely on tests instead of just quarantining. Other states may be depending on just 14-day institutional quarantine."

"GOI SOP doesn't talk about Covid tests on international passengers. We have put an additional safety layer of three Covid tests on returnees -- one on arrival, second from 5-7 days and last on 12th day. This will ensure definite identification of positive cases even if they are asymptomatic and their subsequent treatment. We should look at the spirit behind the order," he added.

On the 14-day additional reporting period for category B, he said, "It is implied as category B patients should report to us for 14 days after their first 14-day quarantine period is over."

Medical Education Minister Dr K Sudhakar said that the State would follow the Centre’s norms.

Till Tuesday, Karnataka’s SOP had three categories. Under Category A (symptomatic), 14-day institutional quarantine at COVID-19 Health Care Centre was mandatory followed by 14-day reporting period. Under Category B (asymptomatic above 60 years with co-morbidities), seven-day institutional quarantine at hotel/hostel followed by seven-day home quarantine and 14-day reporting period had been recommended. The 14-day home quarantine and 14-day reporting period was mandatory for Category C (asymptomatic).

Dubai, Jul 25: The founder of NMC Health, BR Shetty, has had a worldwide freezing order placed on his assets at the request of a lender that claims he has defaulted on a loan of more than $8 million (Dh29.4m).

The order was granted to Credit Europe Bank (Dubai) last month ahead of a claim filed at the DIFC Courts against Mr Shetty, New Medical Centre Trading and NMC Healthcare.

The lender said in its claim they “are jointly and severally liable” for the repayment of money initially secured through a credit agreement in December 2013 and renegotiated in December last year. Credit Europe Bank is an Amsterdam-headquartered institution specialising in trade and commodities finance with operations in nine countries.

The credit agreement was guaranteed by two security cheques which the bank said in its claim were signed by Mr Shetty – one drawn on his personal account and another on the account of New Medical Centre Trading – that have been "dishonoured upon presentation due to insufficient funds".

The bank claimed Mr Shetty “has now fled the jurisdiction of the UAE to India” and that there was a risk of his “substantial” assets in the Emirates being dissipated.

The assets frozen include properties in Abu Dhabi and Dubai, as well as shares in NMC Health, Finablr, BRS Investment Holdings and other companies. It allows for up to $7,000 per week to be spent on “ordinary living expenses and reasonable sum[s] on legal advice and representation”, a DIFC Courts document granting the freezing order shows.

Credit Europe Bank declined to comment when contacted by The National, stating it does not comment on ongoing litigation proceedings. Representatives for Mr Shetty and for NMC Healthcare, which is now being run by administrators Alvarez & Marsal, also declined to comment.

NMC Healthcare was founded by Mr Shetty in 1975 and grew from a single hospital into the UAE’s biggest privately-owned healthcare operator, which employed 2,000 doctors and 20,000 other staff. The company was listed on the London stock exchange and at its peak was valued at £8.58 billion (Dh40bn). However, its shares slumped after short seller Muddy Waters Research issued a report in December 2019 alleging the company had inflated its cash balances, overpaid for assets and understated its debts. This led to a string of damaging revelations by the company, including the fact that its debt was materially higher – at $6.6bn – than the $2.1bn on its balance sheet. NMC Healthcare was placed into administration in April by its biggest creditor, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, but its UAE businesses continue to trade as a going concern.

Mr Shetty said in a statement issued in April that he has been a victim of fraud committed by "a small group of current and former executives” at companies owned by him. He said bank accounts were created in his name and transactions were made without his knowledge, and that loans, cheques and bank transfers were also fraudulently guaranteed in his name using his forged signature.

In response to the claim filed by Credit Europe Bank (Dubai) at the DIFC Courts, Mr Shetty says he did not personally guarantee loans made to NMC Trading or NMC Healthcare and that the signatures used on cheques guaranteeing the loans are forgeries. His defence cites the opinion of “Dr Al Bah, an independent, experienced and qualified forensic document examiner”, that someone other than Mr Shetty signed the lending agreements and cheques.

An application by NMC Trading and NMC Healthcare to the DIFC Courts to have the claim against it heard in private for fear of triggering claims by other lenders – the group owes money to around 80 local, regional and international lenders – was dismissed, given that the appointment of administrators at the group and allegations of fraud at the company are already in the public domain.

Both companies have indicated to DIFC Courts that they intend to contest the claim against them.