Latest news with #Punjaband
India Gazette
21-05-2025
- India Gazette
Ailing 33-year-old rape survivor moves SC for medical aid, harsher sentence for convict
New Delhi [India], May 21 (ANI): A 33-year-old ailing woman, who suffers from neck-down complete paralysis, on Wednesday moved a plea in the Supreme Court seeking medical aid, compensation and enhanced punishment to cab-driver man, who subjected her to brutal repeated rape and sexual violence for 7 months, before he was convicted for rape by a Punjab court and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. The matter mentioned on Wednesday before a bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai is listed for hearing on Friday. As per her plea, the ailing woman was subjected to prolonged and brutal sexual violence, physical assault and illegal confinement by the now convicted man, between August 2022 and March 2023. After subjecting her to the aforesaid brutality, the convict took the woman to Presidency Hotel, Jalandhar, where he raped her again after sedating her. He then called the 'One Stop Centre' hospital and falsely stated that he had found a mentally challenged and physically disabled woman on the roadside. He destroyed all her official documents before doing so. On March 8, 2023, an FIR was registered at Model Town Police Station in Hoshiarpur, based on the victims' statement. Her statements were recorded and she was sent to a protective home in Jalandhar. There, she faced harassment from the convict's family and officials, lacked medical care, and was mistreated. She was finally rescued by a friend and brought back to Delhi in December 2023. A chargesheet was filed on August 20, 2024, and on subsequently the trial court convicted the man under Section 376 IPC, sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. The accused man also challenged the judgment before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Meanwhile, the victim received a letter from the Legal Services Authority requesting documents she no longer had as the convict destroyed those. As per her plea, the victim is still living without proper medical care, shelter, and is receiving death threats from unknown persons urging her not to oppose the appeal. Thus, the victim is seeking specialised medical treatment, rehabilitation, legal aid and protection by the top court. As per the grounds raised in her plea, the victim has submitted that the rape in illegal confinement of a physically disabled woman constitutes an egregious violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, infringing not only her bodily integrity but also her dignity, privacy, and mental well-being. The plea further adds that as per the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, the District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) are mandated to provide immediate medical and financial assistance to victims, either upon application or court recommendation. Moreover, the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018, entitles her to continuous medical and surgical care and similarly the Punjab Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017 provides for recurring treatment-related compensation, the plea states. The victim also seeks access to the complete trial court records, as she is financially and physically incapable of obtaining them herself. Without these documents, the plea states, she cannot exercise her right to file an appeal against the trial court judgment seeking enhanced punishment for the convict. She, therefore, requests that the top court direct the State to provide these records at its expense and grant her liberty to file an appeal before the Delhi High Court to ensure access to justice. Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta, advocates Namrata Mohapatra and Achalika Ahuja, are representing the petitioner. Advocate Dhiraj Abraham Philip filed her petition. (ANI)
The Hindu
21-05-2025
- Health
- The Hindu
Going beyond the blame game: understanding sterilisation and its limits
The story so far Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court examined a case of a child born after a vasectomy and held, with striking clarity, that conception after sterilisation alone could not be held to brand a surgeon negligent. In Chennai, meanwhile, two separate 'failed' tubectomy cases were fought in the Madras High Court recently where, in one case, a post-sterilisation baby was regrettably called an 'unwanted child', and the court imposed heavy penalties on the State and doctor. And in the other case, the court imposed upon the operating doctor, a fine of ₹60,000. These divergent tones remind us that failure of sterilisation can flow either from human error or from biology—and that the law sometimes struggles to tell the two apart. Hence, there is a need to understand the process behind the procedures. India's contraceptive landscape India pioneered the National Family Welfare Programme in 1952 as the first country to do so, yet today, it houses the planet's largest recently however falling fertility levels, at least in the southern States, has indicated that we are in the throes of a demographic shift. Contraception is divided into temporary and permanent methods. Temporary methods include combined oral contraceptives, progestin-only pills, the Copper-T intrauterine device (IUD), the quarterly DMPA injection, and condoms (male and female). Except for condoms, every other form of contraception is made for women. Yet, that lone male option, the condom, carries a priceless bonus by fending off sexually transmitted diseases (HIV, Hepatitis B, Human Papilloma Virus), a protection its female counterpart cannot provide. Between the 1970s and the present, they helped millions of women prevent unwanted pregnancies and septic abortions, pursue higher education after marriage, allowed women to enter paid work, and, by shrinking household sizes, nudged families towards spending on nutrition and education rather than sheer survival. Permanent contraception is surgical. There are two routes: tubectomy for women and vasectomy for men. Tubectomy accounts for 98% of permanent sterilisations and contributes to 62% of all contraceptive use among Indian couples. Around 85% of women undergoing tubectomy in India have the procedure performed at a government health facility. Tubectomy and vasectomy The fallopian tube—an undulating tunnel of ciliated columnar epithelium and smooth muscle—ferries the ovum toward the womb for embryo formation after intercourse. A tubectomy, done through a mini laparotomy or laparoscopy under spinal or general anaesthesia, severs or seals that conduit. Because the cut is definitive, a woman walks out immediately sterile, yet she continues to menstruate. Usually, it is done during the time of menstruation or immediately within 6 weeks of childbirth. Though it needs an operating theatre, sterile instruments, a skilled surgeon, and an anaesthesiologist, it is still preferred over the far simpler male alternative. The vas deferens—a cord lined by pseudostratified columnar epithelium with stereocilia and girdled by thick muscle—transports sperm from the testis to the urethra in the penis. A non-scalpel vasectomy, usually under local anaesthesia, takes barely forty minutes, rarely needs a hospital bed and lets the patient resume work the next day and resume sexual activity within a week. The testes keep churning out sperm, but the cells are quietly re-absorbed; erections, libido, and testosterone remain untouched. Two main disadvantages exist in comparison to tubectomy: the man must use condoms for roughly three months while residual sperm clear, and he must return for a semen test—an appointment often sabotaged by stigma, forgetfulness or sheer inertia. However, failures are rare (about 1 in 1,200) compared with tubectomy, which is 1 in 200–300. Whether the scalpel meets the tube or duct, in all hospital facilities performing the procedure, the following routine happens: due counselling is provided and informed consent is verified; the segment is excised; the labelled specimen travels to histopathology, where ciliated folds confirm fallopian tube or thick muscular wall confirms vas deferens under a microscope. Only after this stamp does the patient receive an incentive—Central funds under the National Family Planning Welfare Programme plus a state 'top-up' because family planning sits on the Concurrent List. Where does failure occur? Contraceptive failure, though statistically rare in surgical sterilisation, must be understood through two distinct lenses: medical negligence and medical mal-occurrence. A failure is termed medical negligence when there is a demonstrable breach in the standard of care—such as improper surgical technique, incorrect identification of ligaments over fallopian tubes or ligation of incorrect anatomical structures, non-adherence to aseptic protocols, or lack of adequate postoperative instructions. In such instances, liability may rest with the healthcare provider. In contrast, a failure arising from medical mal-occurrence is one where all protocols were meticulously followed, yet nature intervenes—such as spontaneous recanalisation of the fallopian tubes or vas deferens. These are recognised biological phenomena and cannot be ascribed to incompetence or error. Importantly, under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, contraceptive failure is considered a valid legal indication for terminating an unwanted pregnancy. The histopathological examination done after surgery to check the surgically removed parts and identify the tissues acts as a safety barrier for the surgeons and a tipping point for the beneficiaries to rectify. Paying damages Since 2013, the National Family Planning Indemnity Scheme has offered a financial net of ₹2 lakh for a death within seven days, ₹50,000 for one in the next three weeks, ₹30,000 for a proven failure, and up to ₹25,000 for major complications. States often stack extra amounts atop these slabs. Doctors, too, are insured up to ₹2 lakh per claim—recognition that good faith cannot always outwit bad luck. Every year, India performs roughly 5-6 million tubectomies and fewer than 30,000 vasectomies—each stitched under hard fluorescent lights by obstetricians, surgeons and nurses who rarely see the limelight. Their labour has averted an estimated 350-400 million births since 1980, silently enlarging per capita GDP and futures. A few deliveries slip past the scalpel, and courts sometimes use wounding words. But judging by the long arc, the family planning wall still stands tall—solid and pragmatic. (Dr. C. Aravinda is an academic and public health physician. The views expressed are personal. aravindaaiimsjr10@
The Print
14-05-2025
- Politics
- The Print
Water-sharing dispute: Punjab & Haryana HC adjourns review plea to 20 May, Mann claims victory
Punjab government's petition challenges the court's 6 May order directing the release of additional water to Haryana, amidst an escalating dispute over water-sharing by the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB). 'The adjournment of the case to 20 May means we have emerged as the winners. We didn't give them (Haryana) a single drop of additional water. We fought in the courts, stood with the state's rights,' the Punjab chief minister said at an event in Ludhiana. Gurugram: The Punjab and Haryana High Court Wednesday adjourned to 20 May Punjab's review petition against its earlier order of supplying additional water from the Bhakra Dam to Haryana, which Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann termed their victory, as the fresh supply cycle anyway begins that day. Mann took to X Wednesday, posting videos of his speech during the inauguration of a few development projects at Ludhiana. 'I was to come for this inauguration when I was informed that the BBMB people were about to open doors to release additional waters for Haryana. So, I decided to move towards Nangal first. I went there and stopped them from releasing the water. Today, our case was heard in the high court. It has now been adjourned to 20 May,' he said. Then, with a sneer on his face, and amid applause by the audience, he added, 'On the night of 20 and 21 May, we will anyway give them water.' The bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel issued notices to the central government, Haryana government and the BBMB, seeking their responses to Punjab's plea by 20 May. Punjab has requested the cancellation or modification of the 6 May order, alleging the BBMB concealed crucial facts to secure the decision. Punjab also referred to a meeting chaired by the Union home secretary, which it argued lacked procedural legitimacy. Citing Rule 7 of the BBMB Rules 1974, Punjab stated that any policy decision affecting a state's rights must be referred to the central government for a decision. Punjab argued that it had already taken up the matter to the Centre, but no response was received, yet the BBMB proceeded with a meeting on 30 April—without Punjab's representation—and decided to release additional water to Haryana. The water-sharing dispute flared up again on 23 April, when Haryana demanded 8,500 cusecs of water from the Bhakra-Nangal project, 4,500 cusecs more than its current allocation of 4,000 cusecs. Punjab refused, arguing Haryana had already utilised 103 percent of its annual share—3.110 million acre-feet (MAF) of its allocated 2.987 MAF for the water year (September to August). For the current year, BBMB allocated 5.512 MAF to Punjab, 2.987 MAF to Haryana, and 3.318 MAF to Rajasthan. Punjab emphasised its own water scarcity, particularly with groundwater depletion, and the need for canal water for the upcoming paddy sowing season. Despite this, a BBMB technical committee in a meeting on 30 April, attended by Haryana, Rajasthan, and Delhi, voted to release additional water to Haryana, bypassing Punjab's dissent. Tensions flared on 1 May when Punjab deployed police at the Nangal Dam, 13 km downstream from Bhakra, to prevent the release of water, prompting BBMB to move the high court. The court's 6 May order restrained Punjab from interfering in BBMB operations and directed the release of 8,500 cusecs to Haryana, including 500 cusecs for Rajasthan and 496 cusecs for Delhi. However, on 8 May, BBMB Chairman Manoj Tripathi faced resistance when he arrived at the dam to oversee the release of water. Local residents and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders protested, allegedly detaining Tripathi at a guest house for over two hours. Tripathi later filed an affidavit, claiming the Punjab Police obstructed BBMB officials, who could release only 299 cusecs before they were stopped. Mann, arriving at the scene, declared that no water would be released until the Centre's official decision from the 2 May meeting was made public. Mann has consistently accused the BJP-led Centre and Haryana of undermining Punjab's water rights. BBMB manages water distribution from the Sutlej and Beas rivers, with the filling season for the Bhakra Dam typically starting around 21 May and lasting until 20 September, when monsoon rains replenish the reservoir. The depleting season begins 21 September and continues until 20 May. Each state's shares for the depleting and filling season are defined from their total respective shares. With the filling season starting on 21 May, Haryana will anyway be entitled to get its due share from midnight, 20 May, the day Punjab and Haryana High Court will resume hearing in the case. (Edited by Ajeet Tiwari) Also Read: Punjab slashing Haryana's Bhakra canal water share triggers political row, Centre likely to mediate
