New Delhi Apr 25 PTI The Supreme Court on Monday directed all the states governments and the union territories UTs to implement the SOP prepared by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights NCPCR for the care and protection of children in street situations A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai said the steps taken so far have not been satisfactory and rescuing children should not be a temporary exercise and it should be ensured that they are rehabilitated As it is clear that the other StatesUTs have not raised any objection or sought any modification of the suggestions made by NCPCR we direct all the statesUTs to implement the guidelines circulated by NCPCR and take steps to rescue and rehabilitate the children apart from the later stages which are clear from Bal Swaraj Portal A status report shall be filed by the statesUTs within a period of two weeks from today the bench said while posting the matter for hearing in the second week of May NCPCR has developed a Standard Operating Procedure SOP 20 for Care and Protection of Children in Street Situations to create a convergence among the various functionaries institutionsagencies Government of India schemes and policies and to ensure a more holistic approach to providing care protection and restoration of children in street situation During the hearing the apex court was informed that the Tamil Nadu and Delhi governments have already formulated the scheme for rescuing and rehabilitating children in street situations The States of Tamil Nadu and Delhi is directed to submit a copy to NCPCR The States of Tamil Nadu and Delhi are directed to implement the scheme and immediate steps in identifying and rehabilitating children in street situations The apex court had earlier directed states and the Union Territories UTs to implement the suggestions for formulation of rehabilitation policy for street children and said it should not remain on paper It had noted that till date information regarding only 17914 street children has been provided while their estimated number is 15-20 lakh The apex court had reiterated that the authorities concerned have to update the material required on the web portal of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights NCPCR without fail The top court had earlier directed that testimony of children who are victims of child trafficking be recorded through video conferencing either at the district court complex or the office of the District Legal Services Authority in the district where the child is residing It had said it was concerned with obviating difficulties to victims of trafficking concerning travelling long distances to give evidence in trial courts PTI PKS RKS RKS

New Delhi Nov 30 PTI A medical professional has to upgrade himself with the latest development in his field which may require him to attend conferences held both in and outside the country and the mere fact that the doctor had gone abroad cannot lead to an inference of medical negligence the Supreme Court on Tuesday saidA bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian observed while setting aside an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which had directed the Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre and a doctor to pay a sum of Rs 1418 lakh along with interest to the legal heirs of the deceasedThe top court said it does not find that the basis of finding the doctor negligent in providing medical care is sustainable as there are both legal and factual errors in the findings recorded by the CommissionIt said every death of a patient cannot on the face of it be considered to be medical negligenceIn respect to such contention of the Doctor being on a foreign visit it is well known a medical professional has to upgrade himself with the latest development in his field which may require him to attend conferences held both in and outside the country Mere fact that the Doctor had gone abroad cannot lead to an inference of medical negligence as the patient was admitted in a hospital having specialists in multi-faculties the bench saidThe apex court said that the NCDRC had commented adversely against the doctor that he had not seen or attended the patient for several days before his departure for his tour to USA and UK for about a month and had not even indicated the name of any super specialist in his field who should look after the patient in his absence It said The patient was even attended by other specialist doctors as well which is evident from the brief summary of treatment given to the patient The experts in the other fields have been consulted from time to time and the treatment was modulated accordingly In spite of the treatment if the patient had not survived the doctors cannot be blamed as even the doctors with the best of their abilities cannot prevent the inevitable The bench said it is a case where the patient was in serious condition impending gangrene even before admission to the Hospital but even after surgery and re-exploration if the patient does not survive the fault cannot be fastened on the doctors as a case of medical negligenceIt is too much to expect from a doctor to remain at the bedside of the patient throughout his stay in the hospital which was being expected by the complainant here A doctor is expected to provide reasonable care which is not proved to be lacking in any manner in the present case the bench said The apex court also said that operation theatres in hospitals cannot be presumed to be available at all timesTherefore non-availability of an emergency operation theatre during the period when surgeries were being performed on other patients is not a valid ground to hold a hospital negligent in any manner the bench saidThe top court was hearing an appeal filed by the hospital challenging the NCDRC order which had directed it and the concerned doctor to pay a sum of Rs 1418 lakh along with interest to the legal heirs of the deceasedThe complaint was filed before the Commission by the legal heirs of the deceased alleging medical negligence on the part of the hospital and the doctor in treating the patient PTI PKS RKS RKS

New Delhi Oct 28 PTI The Supreme Court Thursday dispelled the impression that it was against a particular group or community by banning firecrackers and said it cannot allow violation of rights of citizens under the guise of enjoyment A bench of Justices M R Shah and A S Bopanna made it clear that it wants full implementation of its orders to send a message that it is here to protect the rights of people and can even pass an order for CBI investigation concerning those manufacturers who are selling fake green crackersUnder the guise of enjoyment you manufacturers cannot play with the lives of citizens We are not against a particular community We want to send a strong message that we are here for the protection of fundamental rights of citizensthe bench saidThe apex court said the earlier ban order on firecrackers was passed after giving elaborate reasonsAll firecrackers were not banned It was in the larger public interest There is a particular impression being created It should not be projected that it was banned for a particular purpose Last time we said that we werent coming in the way of enjoyment but we cannot come in the way of fundamental rights of peoplethe bench saidThe top court said there must be some responsibility entrusted to authorities who have been given the right to implement the order on the groundThe bench said even today firecrackers are openly available in the market We want to send a message that we are here to protect the rights of people We have not put a 100 per cent ban on firecrackers Everybody knows what the people of Delhi are suffering due to the pollution caused by firecrackers the bench saidSenior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appearing for the petitioner Arjun Gopal submitted that there cannot be exceptions for big fire manufacturers who have violated the apex courts directions and are contemnorsHe pointed out the minutes of the meeting of the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute and said the manufacturers are using these minutes in every application with regards to their prayer of the uplifting ban on barium nitrateThe top court said the issue of firecrackers that cause pollution is only for the time beingBut that main matter related to stubble burning we havent got time to deal with that After vacation well hear that issue Its very urgent the bench saidThe apex court also said that in its order it would ask CBI to investigate concerning those manufacturers who are selling fake green crackersNobody can be allowed to use fake green crackers and show us that they are complying with our orders the bench saidThe hearing remained inconclusive and will continue tomorrowThe top court had earlier said that under the guise of green crackers banned articles are being used by firecracker manufacturers and reiterated that its earlier order banning joint crackers must be complied by every stateThe bench had said that it is not averse to the celebration but not at the cost of the life of other citizensThe apex court said that celebration does not mean the use of loud crackers and it can also be from Fuljhaddi etc which are not noisyIt had ordered six manufacturers to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of its ordersThe SC had said it cannot infringe the right to life of other citizens under the guise of employment while considering a ban on firecrackers and its prime focus is the right to life of innocent citizensThe apex court had earlier refused to impose a complete ban on the sale of firecrackers and said that sales can happen through only licensed traders and that only green crackers can be sold The online sale of firecrackers has been completely bannedThe verdict had come in response to a plea seeking a ban on the manufacturing and sale of firecrackers across the country to curb air pollutionIn the past the apex court had said that while deciding on a ban on firecrackers it is imperative to take into account the fundamental right of livelihood of firecracker manufacturers and the right to health of over 13 billion people of the country PTI PKS RKS RKS

New Delhi Oct 21 PTI The Supreme Court on Thursday said farmers protesting at Delhi borders against the three farms laws have the right to agitate but they cannot block roads indefinitelyeven as the farmer unions and government embroiled themselves in a blame gameWhile the farmers unions alleged that the police were responsible for the blockade as it suits them to allow a feeling in the minds of the citizens that farmers are blocking the road the Centre said there was an oblique purpose behind the protests During the hearing a bench headed by Justice S K Kaul said it was not against the right to protest even when the legal challenge is pending but ultimately some solution has to be foundFarmers have the right to protest but they cannot keep roads blocked indefinitely You may have a right to agitate in any manner but roads should not be blocked like this People have the right to go on roads but it cannot be blockedthe bench also comprising Justice M M Sundresh saidThe top court asked the farmer unions to respond within three weeks on the issue and posted the matter for hearing on December 7 The bench noted that only four respondents have appeared before it in pursuance of its earlier directionThe apex court said the issue is limited here So far as the road is concerned can the road be blocked We are only concerned with the issue that the roads are not blocked Law is laid down Shaheen Bagh protests case You have a right to agitate but you cannot block roads People also have right on the roads the bench saidSenior advocate Dushyant Dave representing farmers associations said the right to protest is a fundamental rightHe said a large number of similar matters are pending before another bench of the apex court and this case should also be tagged along and be heard by the same benchThe senior advocate further alleged that roads were being blocked by the police and not farmers and said he has travelled six times on those roadsDave said the simple solution to remove the blockade is that the police should allow farmers at Ramlila Maidan and Jantar MantarRoads are blocked by the police After stopping us the BJP had a rally at Ramlila Maidan over the attack on Hindus in Bangladesh where more than five lakh people came Why should they be selective Why dont the lordship take cognisance of that This is the double standard Dave saidThe solution is allow us to agitate at Jantar Mantar he said Solicitor General Tushar Mehta however submitted that there was an oblique purpose behind the protests and sometimes it is felt the farmers protest is not for the cause but for something else Last time they came on Republic Day it became a serious issue something much more than a serious issue the Solicitor General submittedResponding to his submission Dave however said an independent investigation will show that the serious issue was engineered and the people have been given bail who allegedly insulted this country by climbing on Red FortOn Mehtas submission that there was an oblique purpose behind the protests Dave said he cant put allegations on bonafides of farmers We all know that passing of the farm laws was for an oblique purpose It is to help corporate houses he saidThe bench asked Dave Is it your contention that roads can be occupied or is it your contention that roads have been blocked by police Dave submitted that the roads have been blocked due to improper arrangements by the Delhi policeIt suits them to allow a feeling that farmers are blocking the road Let us come to Ramlila Maidan Dave saidMehta said that for some people Ramlila Maidan should be the residence as they survive on Ramlila Maidan and Jantar MantarAddressing the bench Dave said judicial discipline demands that this matter be transferred to a three-judge benchReacting strongly to Daves submission the Solicitor General said We will not succumb to this browbeating The apex court noted Daves submission that he does not want this bench to hear the matter and the case be sent to another bench for hearingThe apex court had earlier wondered how can highways be blocked perpetually while referring to road blockades by farmers protesting at Delhi borders against the three farm laws passed last year and said it is the executives duty to implement the law laid down by the court The top court had allowed the Centre to file a formal application to make farmer unions party to the plea seeking opening of road blockade at Delhi-Uttar Pradesh border at UP Gate hereThe top court was hearing a plea of a NOIDA resident Monicca Agrawaal who has sought removal of blockade saying that earlier it took 20 minutes to reach Delhi and now it is taking over two hours and people of the area are facing hardships due to protests at the UP Gate on Delhi borderOn August 23 the top court had said that the Centre and Delhis neighbouring states should find a solution to road blockades on the national capitals borders due to farmers protestsThe farmers are protesting against the passage of three laws-Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce Promotion and Facilitation Act 2020 the Essential Commodities Amendment Act 2020 and the Farmers Empowerment and Protection Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act 2020 PTI PKS RKS RKS