49 died of alcohol abuse in six months in dry Mizoram
The government has been making massive efforts to curb the menace of drug, alcohol and other substance abuse, Excise and Narcotics department Commissioner Z Lalhmangaiha said.
"According to our records, 49 people, including five women, died because of complications related to alcohol consumption between January and June this year in the state," Lalhmangaiha said.
The Mizoram Liquor (Prohibition) Act prohibits the manufacture, consumption, sale and import of liquor in the state. However, a section of people either brew it locally or bring it from outside Mizoram illegally.
Lalhmangaiha said that inspections are being carried out at hotels and restaurants to find out if they are selling alcohol in violation of the law.
The commissioner said that department officials are regularly conducting night patrolling in Aizawl and other district headquarters to ensure peace in the society.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
11 hours ago
- Time of India
Task force revokes PNDT powers of CMOs in five Haryana districts amid decline in sex ratio
G urgaon: The state govt on Tuesday stripped chief medical officers (CMOs) of five districts of powers under the pre-conception and pre-natal diagnostic techniques (PNDT) Act. The order was issued because the five districts – Ambala, Bhiwani, Charkhi Dadri, Palwal and Sirsa -- showed a decline of around 30 points in sex-ratio at birth (SRB) compared to last year, according to the state's own assessment. Special state squads comprising HCS (Haryana Civil Services) and senior officers will monitor corrective steps in these areas. You Can Also Check: Gurgaon AQI | Weather in Gurgaon | Bank Holidays in Gurgaon | Public Holidays in Gurgaon CMOs are the main authority to enforce PNDT Act in districts. Their responsibilities include registering and regulating clinics that offer ultrasound procedures, genetic counselling and diagnostic services. They are empowered to conduct inspections and raids at ultrasound centres, suspend or cancel the licences of violators, initiate legal proceedings against doctors or clinics involved in sex-selective abortions, and ensure compliance with mandatory documentation. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Indian NRIs Are Getting Eligible For INR 2 Lakh Monthly Pension On Retirement. Invest 18K/M Get Offer Undo "… all powers of chief medical officers (CMOs) of these 5 districts under the PNDT Act be withdrawn and given to CMOs of neighbouring districts to improve the sex ratio," read the order issued by additional chief secretary (health Sudhir Rajpal) after a meeting of the state task force (STF) formed earlier this year to improve Haryana's SRB. At the meeting in Chandigarh, the STF also observed improvements in SRB by 15 districts because of consistent raids and operations to stop illegal abortions and female foeticides. These are Faridabad, Gurgaon, Jhajjar, Jind, Kaithal, Kurukshetra, Mahendergarh, Nuh, Panchkula, Panipat, Rewari, Rohtak, Sonipat, Yamunanagar and Fatehabad There weren't any major changes observed in Hisar and Karnal. Rajpal on Tuesday said cases will be registered for negligence against nodal officers, who failed to improve SRB levels at the five poor performing districts. He said licences of medical centres and hospitals found indulging in illegal practices should be revoked too. "The centres carrying out illegal abortions in the garb of Dilation and Curettage (D&C) procedure should also be identified and action be taken against them," he said. Govt crackdown was ordered after Haryana recorded a decline in sex-ratio at birth (SRB). In 2024, the state's average SRB – the count of number of girls born to 1,000 boys – fell to 910, the lowest since 2016. Since the STF was formed this year, Haryana has filed 19 FIRs in suspected cases of sex-selective abortions flagged through reverse tracking, a process that reviews abortions carried out after 12 weeks of pregnancy. Similarly, action has been initiated against 10 officials for failure to act on complaints related to sex determination.
Indian Express
11 hours ago
- Indian Express
HC flags lack of awareness on mental health legal aid, seeks early framing of rules
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has expressed concern over the lack of awareness among judicial officers, police, and custodial institutions about their statutory duty to inform persons with mental illness of their right to free legal aid, as guaranteed under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. A bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, hearing a public interest litigation filed by Pushpanjali Trust, noted that Section 27 of the 2017 Act makes it mandatory for magistrates, police officers, custodial authorities, and medical professionals incharge of mental health establishments to inform such persons about their entitlement to free legal services under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. 'It is also informed that no orientation programme for making judicial officers aware of this statutory duty is undertaken by the Chandigarh Judicial Academy or any other institution, including the legal aid institutions,' the court recorded. It directed its registry to inform the Chandigarh Judicial Academy, the State Legal Services Authorities of Punjab and Haryana, UT Chandigarh, and the High Court Legal Services Committee to take appropriate steps to address the gap. The court also impleaded the central government through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare as a respondent in the case, directing service of notice to Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain. The ministry has been asked to file its reply within four weeks, specifically clarifying why a Medical Health Review Board has not been constituted under Section 73 of the Act for Chandigarh. During the hearing, counsel for the states of Punjab and Haryana informed the court that the process of framing rules under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, was underway, and sought four weeks to finalise and notify them. The bench granted time and posted the matter for further hearing on September 4. In compliance with an earlier order, the Punjab government assured the court that documentary proof of deposit of Rs 5,000 in costs would be filed before the next date. Managing trustee of the petitioner trust, Aditya Rametra, who appeared in person, had emphasised that failure to inform mentally ill persons of their legal rights amounted to denial of statutory protection.
The Hindu
16 hours ago
- The Hindu
Madras High Court steps in to safeguard twin foetuses of surrogate mother
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (July 29, 2025), invoked its parens patriae jurisdiction in favour of 19-week-old twin foetuses of a surrogate mother and decided to rectify a significant procedural lapse committed by their intending parents as well as the treating hospital before commencing the surrogacy process. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh took upon himself the responsibility of issuing the 'parentage order' required to be obtained by the intending couple/intending woman and the surrogate mother, from a court of the first class magistrate or above, as mandated under Section 4(iii)(a)(II) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act of 2021. Stressing upon the usage of the words 'or above' in the legal provision, the judge agreed with advocate A. Shabnam Banu that the High Court too could issue the 'parentage order' in exceptional cases where the interests of the unborn babies, the surrogate mother as well as the intending parents had to be safeguarded. He directed the intending parents and the surrogate mother, involved in the case before him, to appear before the Master court, which functions in the High Court buildings, on August 1 for the purpose of recording their statements with respect to compliance of other procedures such as obtaining insurance coverage. He decided to pass further orders on the writ petitions filed by the intending couple as well as the treating hospital, after receipt of recorded statements from the Master court, on August 7. In the meantime, the hospital was directed to respond to a notice issued to it by the health department and submit a copy in the court. The judge pointed out that though the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act came into force on January 25, 2022, the statutory rules under it were framed much later and so, most people were still unaware of the procedures prescribed under it and its requirements were yet to percolate into the system. What is a parentage order? Section 4(iii)(a)(II) of the Act categorically states that no surrogacy clinic should initiate the surrogacy process unless the intending couple/intending woman and the surrogate mother obtain a 'parentage order' which shall serve as the birth affidavit regarding the custody of the surrogate child/children after birth. The judge said, before issuing the 'parentage order,' the courts generally satisfy themselves that the intending parents/intending woman do not have any child, either born naturally or through adoption/surrogacy, and that the woman was incapable of having a child naturally due to a medical condition. The courts also ascertain whether the woman who had come forward to bear the foetus was willing to be a surrogate mother for the intending couple and that she had the consent of her husband too, if she was married. Further, she must undertake not to claim parental custody of the baby after he/she is born. The surrogate mother should also agree that the birth certificate could be granted in favour of the intending parents and the latter must also make a statement before the court that they would not abandon the child/children, born through surrogacy, for any reason whatsoever. Further, all parties concerned must assure the court that there was no commercial surrogacy involved and that sufficient insurance coverage too had been taken in favour of the surrogate mother for a period of 36 months to cover the postpartum delivery complications. Therefore, the 'parentage order' was a very important document aimed at declaring the intending couple as the lawful parents of the child/children to be born and it was essential to obtain it before the surrogacy process could be commenced by the treating hospital. The procedural lapse In the present case, the surrogacy process had been initiated without complying with the legal requirement, by Chennai-based GG Hospital which was a pioneer in fertility research. Its counsel contended the hospital had committed a 'bona fide mistake' without giving due attention to the provisions of the new law. The hospital intimated the failure to obtain 'parentage order' to the intending couple only on May 30, 2025 and by that time, the embryo transfer had taken place and the twin foetuses inside the surrogate mother's womb were already 11-weeks old, the court was told. To ensure the efforts taken by the court in the present case to safeguard the bodily autonomy of the surrogate mother and the interests of the unborn babies must not be misused by others in future, Justice Venkatesh made it clear his order could not be cited as a precedent.
