CJI B R Gavai contracts severe infection, being treated in Delhi
'The CJI is responding well and is expected to be discharged and resume duties in a day or two,' it added.
The CJI was in Hyderabad on July 12 to deliver the convocation address at the Nalsar University of Law.
CJI Gavai on the same day also released a special postal cover titled "Babasaheb Dr BR Ambedkar – Constituent Assembly – Constitution of India" and a set of picture postcards on "Art & Calligraphy in the Constitution of India" in Hyderabad.
The CJI did not hold court on Monday on the conclusion of the partial working days.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Delhi govt to inaugurate 34 new Ayushman Aarogya Mandirs
New Delhi: The Delhi government is set to inaugurate 34 new Ayushman Aarogya Mandirs across the city by next week, bringing the total number of such centres to 67, officials said on Tuesday. There are presently 33 Ayushman Aarogya Mandirs operational across Delhi aiming to provide holistic, accessible and affordable primary healthcare. The addition of 34 more centres this week will mark the second phase of the rollout. Delhi Health Minister Pankaj Singh told PTI, "We will inaugurate 34 more Ayushman Aarogya Mandirs this week. In the third phase of the rollout, the total number will rise to 80." He emphasised the initiative reflects the government's strong commitment to strengthening the healthcare system and ensuring better services for Delhi residents. The initiative is being positioned as a corrective step toward bridging healthcare gaps that the government claims were neglected by previous administrations. "These are not just buildings. They are centres of primary care and prevention - areas that were lacking in the previous government's approach," Singh said. The district-wise distribution includes around five new centres in central Delhi, four in east Delhi, and several others across north east, north west, south east and west Delhi. Most of these centres are being established by upgrading existing mohalla clinics, dispensaries, and polyclinics. Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta and her Cabinet inaugurated 33 Ayushman Aarogya Mandirs and 17 Jan Aushadhi Kendras across the city last month. The government has set an ambitious target of establishing over 1,100 such clinics across the capital. Ayushman Aarogya Mandirs are a component of the Union government's Ayushman Bharat initiative . After the BJP came to power in Delhi, the state government signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the Centre earlier this month to implement the Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (AB-PMJAY) in the capital -- fulfilling a major poll promise of the party. Additionally, Rs 320 crore has been proposed for the expansion of Health and Wellness Centres and Ayushman Aarogya Mandirs to strengthen primary healthcare services through the establishment of 400 new HWCs and AAMs.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
'Denial of preferred food to prisoners not rights violation,' says SC; flags disability gaps in jails
Representative Image NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that not providing "preferred or costly food items" to prisoners, including those with disabilities, does not constitute a violation of fundamental rights. Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan clarified that while Article 21 of the Constitution extends the right to life to all prisoners, it does not grant them the right to demand personalised or luxurious food choices, PTI reported. The bench emphasised, "Mere non-supply of preferred or costly food items cannot ipso facto be treated as a violation of fundamental State's obligation is to ensure that every inmate, including those with disabilities, receives adequate, nutritious, and medically appropriate food, subject to medical certification." The court stated that prisons are correctional facilities rather than extensions of civil society's comforts. Unless resulting in provable harm to health or dignity, the court noted that withholding non-essential or indulgent items does not violate constitutional or human rights. "Prisons are often regarded as the 'tail-end' of the criminal justice system – historically designed for rigid discipline, harsh conditions, and minimal liberties. While modern penological principles advocate rehabilitation over retribution, the current prison infrastructure and operational systems in India remain grossly inadequate – especially when it comes to meeting the needs of prisoners with disabilities," the verdict stated. These observations arose from an appeal by advocate L Muruganantham, who suffers from Becker muscular dystrophy, challenging a Madras High Court order that awarded him Rs 5 lakh compensation. His imprisonment stemmed from a land dispute between his family and another individual. During his incarceration, he alleged inadequate medical care and insufficient protein-rich food, including eggs, chicken and nuts, on a daily basis. The court acknowledged that while the respondent authorities may not be directly responsible for prison facility deficiencies, these issues highlight the urgent need for prison reforms, particularly regarding disability-sensitive infrastructure and protocols. The court recognised the systematic neglect in prison infrastructure, especially concerning disabled prisoners' needs. "Persons with disabilities must be provided healthcare equivalent to that available in the general community. This includes access to physiotherapy, speech therapy, psychiatric care, and assistive devices, such as wheelchairs, hearing aids, or crutches. Prison authorities are under a duty to coordinate with public healthcare systems to ensure uninterrupted care. Logistical or financial limitations cannot be cited to justify a withdrawal of this obligation," it said. The court found most state prison manuals "outdated" and "uninformed" regarding developments in disability law and rights-based discourse. "They frequently conflate sensory or physical disabilities with mental illness or cognitive decline, thereby eroding the distinct legal right to reasonable accommodation. This conflation promotes harmful stereotypes and obstructs disabled inmates from claiming their lawful entitlements," it noted. The court concluded that the state bears both constitutional and moral obligations to protect disabled prisoners' rights, ensuring non-discriminatory treatment and facilitating their rehabilitation and societal reintegration.
India Gazette
7 hours ago
- India Gazette
J-K Students Association writes to Siddaramaiah over hijab ban on Kashmiri girl students in Karnataka nursing college, seeks intervention
Srinagar (Jammu and Kashmir) [India], July 15 (ANI): The Jammu and Kashmir Students Association (JKSA) on Tuesday wrote to Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, seeking his immediate intervention in an incident of alleged religious discrimination faced by Kashmiri female students at a nursing college in Bengaluru. The students, who wear the hijab or burkha in accordance with their religious beliefs, have reportedly been barred from attending classes and threatened with expulsion by the management of Sri Soubhagya Lalitha College of Nursing, affiliated with the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS). In its letter, the Association expressed deep anguish over the harassment and humiliation allegedly inflicted upon the students, who were denied entry into classrooms and practical sessions for the past several days. 'These Kashmiri female students have been systematically targeted, humiliated, and denied their fundamental right to education solely because they choose to wear the burkha or abaya, an expression of modesty, dignity, and identity rooted deeply in their religious and personal beliefs,' the letter stated. National Convenor of the Association, Nasir Khuehami, said that a disturbing incident occurred in which the college chairman stormed into a classroom and ordered hijab-wearing students to leave immediately. When the students asked for clarification based on this directive, they were reportedly told, 'This is our college; only our rules apply.' The chairman and principal allegedly threatened to terminate the students and withhold their academic records if they continued to wear their religious attire. The students were warned that they would not be permitted inside the college unless they removed their hijabs, despite no official or legal policy existing to support such a ban. 'They were told to follow so-called university rules, which prohibit hijab and burkha, though no such official regulation exists under Indian law,' he said. Further compounding the matter, the college administration allegedly justified the ban by claiming that other students had objected to the presence of hijab-wearing students. The chairman is also reported to have stated that 'hijab and pardah are not allowed for medical students anywhere in the country, not even in Kashmir,' and added, 'no article or fundamental right is applicable in our college.' Calling these justifications 'absurd, Islamophobic stereotypes,' Khuehami condemned the use of such discriminatory practices and language, noting that this is a 'direct and dangerous violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India.' The letter cites Articles 25 (freedom of religion), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), and 21A (right to education), stating that forcing students to choose between their faith and education is both 'unconscionable' and 'unconstitutional.' Highlighting the psychological and emotional toll on the affected students, He said that, 'It is heartbreaking and enraging in equal measure that students from a conflict-affected region, who left their homes and came to Karnataka in pursuit of higher education and opportunity, are now being subjected to such humiliation and trauma.' The association stressed that the implications of this incident stretch beyond the four students directly affected, warning that it sends 'a chilling message to every girl from a minority background that her religious identity makes her unwelcome in educational spaces.' The association called upon Karnataka's progressive legacy of pluralism, referencing the reformist tradition of Basavanna, the leadership of Devaraj Urs, and the inclusive vision of poet Kuvempu. 'This incident, if left unaddressed, risks undermining that very legacy. It threatens to turn institutions of learning into spaces of exclusion, intolerance, and fear,' the letter warned. The letter further pointed out that hundreds of Kashmiri students are enrolled in colleges across Karnataka and have chosen the state for its academic excellence, cultural tolerance, and safety. It said that such incidents not only traumatise individual students but also shake the trust of the entire student community. The association demanded that the Chief Minister take swift and decisive action. 'These young women must be allowed to resume their education without any coercion to compromise their religious beliefs. The concerned authorities, including the Education Department, RGUHS, and the Minority Commission, must be directed to conduct a thorough investigation, hold those responsible accountable, and issue clear instructions to all educational institutions that such discrimination is unconstitutional and unacceptable,' Khuehami added. The association emphasised that this was an opportunity for Karnataka to reaffirm its values of justice and inclusivity. 'At a time when our national discourse is increasingly polarised, Karnataka has the opportunity to rise above narrowness and reaffirm the principles on which this country was built: liberty, dignity, fraternity, and justice,' it said. 'The students of this state, whether from Bengaluru or Baramulla, must feel safe, valued, and protected.' The association Urged Chief Minister to direct the Education Minister, RGUHS, and the Minority Commission to investigate the matter urgently and ensure that the students are allowed to attend classes immediately without the condition of removing their religious attire. The association also called for strict disciplinary action against the college officials found guilty of violating the students' rights. (ANI)
