Latest news with #DelhiHighCourt
Indian Express
30 minutes ago
- Health
- Indian Express
Refrain from practising as super specialists: Delhi Medical Council to Fortis' doctors
The Delhi Medical Council (DMC) has asked two doctors of Fortis Hospital in Shalimar Bagh to refrain from claiming neonatologist status and practising as super specialists amid an ongoing inquiry. In a letter to the medical superintendent of the hospital, the council informed that the two doctors — Dr Akhilesh Singh and Dr Vivek Jain — cannot claim the status. 'Their credentials as qualified pediatricians are also pending inquiry,' the DMC said. The council wrote the letter to the hospital based on a complaint received against the two doctors and a Delhi High Court order that followed. The Delhi Medical Council's Executive Committee has also sought a reply from the private hospital and the doctors. In a statement, Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, said that the order has been passed without their knowledge or opportunity for the doctors to present their case. 'We are astonished by the recent order, which seems to have been passed without our knowledge or opportunity for the doctors to present their case. The lack of prior notice for any hearing raises concerns about the order's validity. Notably, the Delhi Medical Council's 2023 affidavit to the Hon'ble High Court did not question the doctors' qualifications, making this development surprising. We are currently reviewing the order and will take appropriate legal action. Given the matter's sub judice status, we will refrain from further comments at this time,' said Fortis Hospital. While Dr Vivek Jain refused to comment on the matter, Dr Akhilesh said he has not received the DMC order yet. A writ petition was filed in the Delhi High Court against the two doctors, where the mother of a five-year-old boy alleged that the hospital deliberately concealed his birth injury and deprived him of timely treatment. According to the petition filed by Advocate Sachin Jain on behalf of the woman, her child suffered brain hypoxic injury at Fortis Hospital during his birth in 2017. The woman alleged that the hospital concealed this injury from her by fabricating the child's medical records. 'The child eventually became permanently vegetative and developed a rare medical condition known as 'West Syndrome'. He is living in deep pain and suffering from a high degree of epilepsy and cerebral palsy,' the petition underlined. She also claimed that the child remained in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) at Fortis Hospital for 11 days after birth. Then, Dr Vivek Jain and Dr Akhilesh Singh discharged the child, stating that there is no sign of any injury. Jain also submitted a complaint with the DMC and alleged that the two doctors are unqualified but have been practising in the Neonatal ICU at Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi. 'They don't even possess the requisite qualifications to be an expert or a specialist. Yet, they are practicing in these critical units of a super-speciality hospital and administering treatment to critically ill neonates and infants, thereby posing a serious threat to their lives and limbs,' he said. In March, the High Court directed the DMC and National Medical Council to file an affidavit on the qualifications of the two doctors.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Digital rights group moves HC against Delhi Police takedown powers
Digital rights advocacy group, Software Freedom Law Centre ( has filed a petition in the Delhi High Court challenging a recent notification by the Lieutenant-Governor (L-G) of Delhi that empowers the city's police to issue takedown notices for online content. The notification designates the Delhi Police as the 'Nodal Agency' under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 – a move claims lacked legal authority. In its plea, the organisation argues that empowering police officers to issue unilateral takedown orders without judicial oversight is arbitrary and violates due process. The petition underscores the distinction between the investigative role of a police officer and the regulatory power to issue takedown notices under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 'Conflating these two distinct functions – investigation of offences and regulation of speech – results in a constitutionally impermissible overlap,' the plea said. The petition asserts that only the Central government, under Section 69A of the IT Act, has the statutory authority to issue content takedown directives. The court on Wednesday directed the Office of the L-G and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to submit their replies within six weeks. The matter has been listed for further hearing on September 17.
United News of India
6 hours ago
- Politics
- United News of India
Delhi HC grants protection to Madhya Pradesh journalist who alleged police assault
New Delhi, May 28 (UNI) The Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted two months' protection to a Madhya Pradesh's journalist who alleged assault by the Superintendent of Police of Bhind. Delhi High Court's Justice Ravinder Dudeja after hearing the petition filed on behalf of Amarkant Singh Chouhan, a resident of Madhya Pradesh and Bhind Bureau Chief of Swaraj Express News channel, directed the Delhi Police to give protection to him for two months. The Court directed the journalist to furnish the details of the police station where he is staying in Delhi and also said that his number be shared with the beat officer and Station House Officer. The court said, "... they can approach the high court concerned (for availing further legal remedies)". Pritam Singh Rajawat, who runs a YouTube channel, Shashikant Goyal who runs a news portal, and Amarkant Singh Chouhan, Bhind Bureau Chief of Swaraj Express News channel alleged in a complaint submitted to the District Collector that they were assaulted on May 1 inside the office of the Superintendent of Police. Counsel for Chouhan submitted before the court that he came to Delhi fleeing violence by the police in Bhind and is unable to return to Madhya Pradesh due to threat to his life and personal liberty. It is further submitted that besides Chouhan more than half a dozen other scribes were also present in the Superintendent of Police Asit Yadav's chamber and all had been stripped down to their undergarments before being physically assaulted. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that SP Asit Yadav had invited the petitioner to have tea with him in his chamber and physically assaulted him on May 1 as he was displeased with his reporting about the illegal sand mining activities in the Chambal River. The counsel further submitted that if the petitioner returns to his hometown in Bhind there is threat to his and his family's life. He requested to court to pass a protection order for his right to life and personal liberty and also to protect the freedom of speech and expression and the right to carry out profession defined under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. UNI XC SSP
The Hindu
11 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Delhi HC asks Centre to consider plea for law against sexual crimes on animals
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (May 28, 2025) asked the Centre to treat as a representation a petition by the Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations (FIAPO) seeking urgent and specific legal provision to prosecute sexual crimes against animals. Also Read | Concerns grow over legal vacuum as India moves to repeal Section 377 in the wake of disturbing cases of sexual assault of animals The petition came in the wake of the complete repeal of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The plea argued that though Section 377 was rightly read down by the Supreme Court in its 2018 judgment to decriminalise consensual same-sex relationships, the Section's complete deletion from the BNS has inadvertently decriminalised sexual violence against animals, leaving them unprotected by law. The plea said there is a 'legal vacuum' created by the omission of provision dealing with sexual crimes against animals, which were previously covered under Section 377. FIAPO, in its plea, also highlighted close to 50 cases of sexual abuse against farmed, companion and wild animals. It said in just the month of April 2025, three cases came to light: in Delhi's Shahdara area, where a man was arrested for allegedly raping multiple dogs; in Delhi's Saket area, where a pet dog was found unconscious on the road and died later, with a condom being retrieved from the dog's private parts; and in Coimbatore's Temple Town, where a construction worker was found sexually abusing a dog. The court, however, observed that it would not interfere with the legislative procedure. It directed the government to decide the issue in a time-bound manner.
India Gazette
11 hours ago
- Politics
- India Gazette
Delhi HC issues notice to TMC MP Saket Gokhale over non-compliance with defamation judgment
New Delhi [India], May 28 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued a notice to Trinamool Congress leader (TMC) and Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament, Saket Gokhale, directing him to explain why he should not face civil imprisonment for failing to apologize to former diplomat Lakshmi Puri over defamatory social media posts. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora presided over the hearing of an execution petition filed by Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri, seeking enforcement of the final judgment and decree dated July 1, 2024. The ruling had mandated Gokhale to pay Rs 50 lakh in damages within eight weeks and publish a public apology both in a newspaper and on his X (formerly Twitter) account within four weeks. On April 24, 2025, the High Court had ordered the attachment of Gokhale's salary, amounting to Rs 1,90,000 per month, until the full decretal sum of Rs 50 lakh was realised. Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, representing Lakshmi Puri, highlighted that a coordinate bench hearing a contempt petition had, on May 9, 2025, directed Gokhale to issue the apology within two weeks as per the decree. Singh pointed out that this directive had neither been disclosed to the current Court nor challenged through an appeal, and more significantly, it had not been complied with. After hearing submissions from both sides, including arguments from Gokhale's Counsel, Naman Joshi, the Court noted that the Judgment Debtor appeared to be disregarding its directives and judicial process. The Court observed that despite granting additional time for compliance, Gokhale had failed to adhere to the decree dated July 1, 2024, as well as the subsequent order issued on May 9, 2025. In response, the Court issued a show-cause notice to Gokhale, requiring him to explain why he should not be sent to civil imprisonment. The Court further directed him to file a reply within a week. Lakshmi Puri was represented by Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, briefed by Karanjawala & Company. (ANI)
