The Uttar Pradesh government has decided to set up cow protection committees in all districts of the state.The ‘Gau Sanrakshan Samiti’ would be headed by the district magistrate and it would ensure that cow sheds in the region operate efficiently, said a statement issued by the state government here on Tuesday.”The committee will be headed by the district magistrate, while the superintendent of police and the district’s chief development officer will be its vice-chairmen. The chief veterinary officer will be its member secretary,” Principal Secretary (Animal Husbandry) Sudhir M Bobde said.Apart from this, to make the committees self-reliant various cow-related products such as biogas, compost, soaps, incense sticks, mosquito repellant coil, phenyl made from cow’s urine would be sold, he said.
Join the discussion<!–end of artlbotbor–>
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court has taken note of a surge in “last minute” litigations related to admissions in medical colleges, which end up giving jitters to medical aspirants and colleges alike, and decided to lay down “deterrent measures” to avoid such situations.The top court is flooded with last minute petitions relating to the issue of either grant or denial of permission to medical colleges to admit students for MBBS and other courses across the country. A bench of Justices S A Bobde and L N Rao, while dealing with medical colleges related matters, observed that annual recurrence of this kind of litigation creates high pressure and anxiety for students, medical institutions and all concerned.”All the counsel appearing for the parties agreed that it is high time some deterrent measures be laid down for colleges and state authorities from doing acts which generate such last minute litigation,” the bench said. “We therefore, consider it appropriate to post the matter for further hearing and orders on such measures on a later date,” the court said and posted the matter for hearing in December. The apex court was dealing with petitions filed by some private medical colleges which were denied permission to admit students in MBBS course for the academic year 2017-2018 by the orders issued by the Central Government last month. The colleges had told the bench that they were denied the permission to admit students in spite of the findings arrived at by the Centre that there was no or negligible deficiencies.After the government’s order, these colleges had moved the Kerala High Court which, in an interim order, had allowed them to provisionally admit students for academic year 2017- 18. Thereafter, the Medical Council of India (MCI) had moved the apex court challenging the interim order of the high court which was set aside by the top court. However, the apex court had permitted the colleges to approach it by filing writ petitions.The bench, while dealing with the petitions filed by the colleges, observed that it was surprised that without giving any reasons, the government had declined permission to it for fresh batch for the year 2017-2018.”Having regard to the fact that on merits, we find the deficiencies in the colleges are marginal and the colleges are largely compliant, we consider it appropriate to make a definite direction regarding the admission of students as has been done in the earlier decisions as cited above,” it said.”It is not possible to leave the students’ career in limbo. We order accordingly,” it said while noting submissions of the counsel appearing for Kerala that admission of around 400 students should not be allowed to be cancelled since it could not be possible for them to take admission in any other colleges at this stage. The court also made it clear that marginal deficiencies would have to be removed completely by the college management and “they must offer the same for inspection by the MCI within a reasonable time from now and in any case well before the next academic year”.
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed a 20-year-old Pune-based woman to terminate her 24-week-foetus which was growing without a skull and a brain.The bench of Justices SA Bobde and L Nageswara Rao relied on a report submitted by a medical board, which said that there was “complete absence of brain and skull” of the foetus and the chances of survival was minimal.The top court, however, was unable to deliberate on another plea for abortion, filed by the parents of a 13-year-old rape survivor, who is more than seven months pregnant. The matter was postponed to Monday because the medical board was unable to conduct its tests as directed by the court.”Tuesday’s deluge in Mumbai threw things off gear,” advocate Sneha Mukherjee, who is representing the parents in this case, said. On Monday, the top court had ordered a medical board at JJ Hospital to examine the feasibility of an abortion for the 13-year-old.However, due to incessant rains on Tuesday, the family, residents of Kandivli — about 31 km away from the hospital —couldn’t go for the tests.The family will go for the tests as ordered on Friday. Any additional delay merely complicates the matter since the minor is already way past her seventh month of pregnancy.
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed a Pune-based woman to abort her 24-week foetus, which does not have a skull or a brain.The apex court relied on the report of the medical board of the Pune-based B J Government Medical College that there was no medical treatment for the anomaly.”We consider it appropriate and in the interest of justice to allow termination of pregnancy,” a bench comprising Justices S A Bobde and L Nageswara Rao said.The 20-year-old woman was examined at the Pune hospital.The doctors said in their report that there was a “complete absence of brain and skull” of the foetus and survival rate was minimal.Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the Centre, told the bench that the government had, in accordance with the apex court’s earlier direction, communicated to all states and union territories to constitute medical boards to deal with such abortion matters.”The Union of India has communicated to all the states and union territories about having such medical boards in place,” Kumar told the court.The apex court’s order came on a plea of a woman seeking its nod to undergo medical termination of pregnancy on the ground that the skull of the foetus had not formed and the child, if born alive, may not be able to survive.Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act prohibits abortion of a foetus after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Disobeying summons issued by an investigating agency under the money laundering law amounts to a criminal offence, the Supreme Court held on Thursday.The SC order came as it set aside a Karnataka High Court order that had held that disobedience of summons for appearance did not amount to contravention of the provisions of the 1963 Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA).”In any event, the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained as it is contrary to the law laid down by this court,” a bench of justices SA Bobde and L Nageswara Rao said.The bench passed the judgement on an appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging the high court order. Summons were issued under Section 40 of FERA in October 1997 directing three accused who were allegedly involved in releasing substantial foreign exchange in contravention of the law, to appear before ED officer, but they had failed to respond.Thereafter, a complaint was filed against them in a court in Bangalore where one accused Mohammed Akram was represented by an advocate. The lower court, however, acquitted him and directed the other two to face the trial.The trial court had held that the summons issued by ED were not duly served on the respondent personally and the refusal to appear before the enforcement officer in spite of summons under the provision of FERA, cannot be regarded as a contravention of the Act.
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court will commence hearing from Wednesday to decide if the contentious issue of right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution.Hours after referring the matter to a larger bench, the apex court today set up the nine-judge bench to be headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar. It will also comprise Justices J Chelameswar, S A Bobde, R K Agrawal, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Abhay Manohar Sapre, D Y Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and S Abdul Nazeer.A five-judge Constitution bench headed by the CJI, which was to deal with pleas challenging the validity of the Aadhaar scheme and the right to privacy attached to it, was faced with the two past verdicts, delivered in 1950 and 1962 by larger benches, holding that the privacy right was not a fundamental right.The apex court said the nine-judge bench would deal with the limited issue of right to privacy and the correctness of the two judgements. The matter challenging the Aadhaar scheme would be then referred back to a smaller bench, it said. “During the course of the hearing today, it seems that it has become essential for us to determine whether there is any fundamental right of privacy under the Indian Constitution,” the bench, also comprising Justices J Chelameswar, S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud and S Abdul Nazeer, said.”The determination of this question will essentially entail whether the decision recorded by this court in M P Sharma and Ors vs. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi and Ors. (of 1950) by an eight-judge Constitution bench, and also, in Kharak Singh vs. the State of UP and Ors. (of 1962) by a six-judge Constitution bench, that there is no such fundamental right, is the correct expression of the constitutional position,” it said in its order.The court asked Attorney General K K Venugopal, representing the Centre, and other senior advocates, including Arvind Datar, Shyam Divan, Gopal Subramanium and Anand Grover, who appeared for petitioners opposed to the Aadhaar scheme, to submit their written briefs in the meantime. At the outset, Venugopal reiterated the arguments of his predecessor Mukul Rohatgi that there have been inconsistent views so far as judicial pronouncements on right to privacy was concerned.He said the apex court in M P Sharma and Kharak Singh cases have held that right to privacy was not a fundamental right and later, the smaller benches have said that it was a fundamental right. Venugopal also said that the right to privacy is not a fundamental right and rather it is common law right which is not recognised by the Constitution.One of the counsel for petitioners termed as “regressive” the stand of the Centre that the right to privacy was common law right and not a part of fundamental right under the Constitution.The apex court, initially, referred to the 1978 judgement in the Maneka Gandhi case and said that there was no need to revisit the judgements in Kharak Singh and M P Sharma cases on right to privacy. A three-judge bench had in 2015 referred to a larger bench a batch of pleas, including the one filed by Justice (retd) K S Puttaswamy, challenging the validity of the Aadhaar scheme and the aspect of right to privacy attached to it. The apex court had agreed to set up a bench on July 12 to deal with the Aadhaar-related matters after the attorney general and senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for petitioners, had jointly mentioned the matter.The petitioners had claimed that collection and sharing of biometric information, as required under the scheme, was a breach of the “fundamental” right to privacy. Allowing the Centre’s plea, the court had framed various questions, including as to whether right to privacy was a fundamental right, to be decided by a Constitution bench. “If yes, then what would be contours of right to privacy,” the bench had said while referring the matter to the then CJI for setting up a larger bench.At an earlier hearing, then AG Rohatgi, while backing the Aadhaar card scheme, had contended that right to privacy was not a fundamental right. “No judgment explicitly cites right to privacy as a fundamental right. It is not there under the letters of Article 21 either. If this court feels that there must be clarity on this subject, only a Constitution bench can decide,” Rohatgi had said. He had cited the two judgements, pronounced by six and eight-judge benches, which had held that right to privacy was not a fundamental right.Subsequently, smaller benches had held a contrary view and, hence the matter needed to be decided by a larger bench, he had said. “Whether right to privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India, in the light of express ratio to the contrary by an eight-judge bench in M P Sharma case and also by a six-judge bench of this court in Kharak Singh’s case has to be decided,” Rohtagi had said.