Latest news with #2021Act
Mint
2 days ago
- Health
- Mint
Govt pushes states on establishing healthcare councils
New Delhi: The top body for allied and healthcare professionals—National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions (NCAHP)—has asked states and union territories to urgently set up their Allied and Healthcare Councils. A letter, dated 17 July, from the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions (NCAHP), shows growing concern over delays that could affect healthcare quality across the country. Many states have not yet created these important councils as required by the NCAHP Act of 2021. This Act was put in place to bring order and set clear rules for the training and work of various healthcare support staff. The letter, seen by Mint, specifically points out that 11 states and union territories still haven't formed their councils. These states/UTS are Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Haryana, Jharkhand, Ladakh, Lakshadweep, Puducherry, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. Another 11 states have formed their councils but have not met the rules of 2021 Act. These regions include Assam, Bihar, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Meghalaya, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, and West Bengal. The letter has highlighted 'non-conformities" such as the nomination of medical doctors as chairpersons or members. These State Councils are crucial for ensuring that allied and healthcare professionals across India are properly trained, registered, and practice safely. They are responsible for setting standards to make sure that schools and training programs offer quality education, and for keeping records, i.e., maintaining official lists of qualified professionals, which helps patients know they are getting care from trained individuals. Furthermore, these councils ensure that professionals follow strict rules and ethics in their work and providing improved care to the patient. Who are allied healthcare professionals? Allied healthcare professionals are the backbone of the healthcare system, working closely with doctors and nurses to provide comprehensive patient care. They are specialized experts in various fields such as diagnostic, treating and rehabilitating patients. This group includes a wide range of roles such as physiotherapists, Medical Lab Technologists, Radiology Technicians, Nutritionists/Dieticians and Occupational Therapists and Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs). Essentially, they are highly skilled professionals who play a vital role in patient recovery, diagnosis, and overall health management. Dr Rajeev Jayadevan, public health expert and past president at Indian Medical Association (Cochin) said that healthcare involves teamwork, and all members play a role in ensuring good outcomes. 'A doctor or nurse alone will not be able to achieve much without other well-credentialed team members—who are collectively termed allied healthcare professionals. They include physiotherapists, lab technicians, radiology technologists, nutritionists, optometrists, and others. They are vital to diagnostics, surgery, rehabilitation, chronic disease management, and community-based care. Irregular standards in the training of individual team members will ultimately impact healthcare delivery—it is said that a chain always breaks at the weakest link." The NCAHP Act, 2021 mandates that every state and union territory establish a State Allied and Healthcare Council to regulate these professions. However, many have either not complied or formed councils that do not conform to the Act's provisions. Jayadevan said that the consequences of this delay are several. 'It leaves patients vulnerable to unqualified and unregulated practitioners, without legal oversight to prevent unethical or unsafe practices. Delaying proper implementation undermines patient safety, workforce quality, and India's broader public health goals." Queries sent to the health ministry spokesperson remained unanswered.
India Today
15-07-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Kerala High Court rejects Governor's appeal on Vice Chancellor appointments
The Kerala High Court has upheld its earlier ruling that annulled the temporary appointments of Vice Chancellors (VCs) to two state universities by the former Governor. A division bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice PV Balakrishnan upheld the single judge verdict, stating that the temporary appointments made at Kerala Digital University and APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University were not legally Governor, who also is the Chancellor of the universities, had filed the appeal challenging the single bench order that deemed the appointments procedurally flawed. The court found merit in the original observation that the appointments had bypassed the proper legal case concerns the Governor's decision to appoint Ciza Thomas as the temporary Vice Chancellor of Kerala Digital University and K Sivaprasad as APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University VC. These appointments were made through separate notifications issued on November 27, 2024. The division bench observed that the University Grants Commission Regulations of 2010 and 2018 do not address temporary VC appointments pending regular ones. It referred to Section 13(7) of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act and Section 11(10) of the Kerala Digital University Act, which allow the Chancellor to appoint a temporary VC only for up to six months, and only with the state government's court held that the Chancellor had no authority to appoint anyone as VC 'until further orders,' as was done in these cases without the required recommendation. It upheld the single judge's decision to strike down those appointments, saying there was no reason to interfere with the May 19, 2025, judgment. The writ appeals were High Court also noted that the prolonged absence of regular VCs had harmed the functioning of both universities and affected students. It urged the Chancellor and the state government to act promptly and appoint full-time VCs without case involved two writ appeals: One challenged the annulment of Ciza Thomas's appointment as VC of Kerala Digital University. The court noted her appointment violated the 2021 Act, which requires state government recommendation. However, it did not remove her, as her six-month term was ending on May second related to K Sivaprasad's temporary appointment as VC of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University. The court found that the Chancellor had not followed Section 13(7) of the 2015 Act, which also requires a government recommendation. As his tenure was nearly over, the court did not intervene. - Ends IN THIS STORY#Kerala
NDTV
27-06-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
UP Government Gives Rs 5 Lakh Aid To Accused Over Delay In Release From Jail
New Delhi: Following Supreme Court's reprimand, the UP government on Friday said a man, whose release from prison was delayed for about a month after getting bail, has been compensated with Rs 5 lakh. The man, booked under the provisions of the state's anti-conversion law, was granted bail by the top court on April 29 but released from Ghaziabad district jail only on June 24 -- indicating a delay of 28 days. On June 25, the top court while pulling up the state authorities over the delay, ordered a Rs 5 lakh compensation and asked UP government to report on compliance. On Friday, the state's counsel informed a bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh that the state had complied with the direction and paid the compensation. The man's counsel confirmed having received the amount. The top court granted bail to the accused on April 29 and subsequently on May 27, a trial court in Ghaziabad issued his release. On June 25, when the top court was informed about the man's release the previous day, it said liberty was a "very valuable and precious" right guaranteed under the Constitution. The man, the top court said, had lost his liberty for at least 28 days due to a "trivial non-issue". The bench also took strong exception over the delay on the ground that a sub-section of a provision of Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 was not mentioned in the bail order. It had passed the order on a plea by the accused seeking a modification of the April 29 order to specifically include clause (1) of section 5 of the 2021 Act. The bench then ordered an enquiry into the matter by the principal district and sessions judge, Ghaziabad. The enquiry's focus was directed to be on the reason behind the delay. On June 25, the state's counsel said the trial court's May 27 order mentioned all details except Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 of the Act and, therefore, a plea for correction was filed by the jail authorities on May 28. Since the application was not disposed of earlier, she said, the petitioner was not released. The lawyer further informed the bench that the man was released post the order's correction. The man was booked under Section 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage etc) of the erstwhile IPC and Sections 3 and 5 (Prohibition of conversion from one religion to another religion by misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, allurement) of the 2021 Act. On Friday, the bench posted the examination of the inquiry report on August 25.
Hindustan Times
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC awards ₹5L to Ghaziabad man held in ‘prolonged custody'
The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay ₹ 5 lakh as interim compensation to a man who remained in jail for nearly a month despite being granted bail, calling the episode a 'denial of constitutional liberty' and a 'travesty of justice'. The court also ordered a judicial enquiry into possible lapses by prison officials. The bench directed the PDSJ to determine whether the absence of a sub-clause in the order was indeed the real cause for the delay or whether gross negligence—or something 'more sinister'—was to blame. (Shutterstock) A bench of justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh expressed strong disapproval of the continued detention of the petitioner, calling it a 'denial of constitutional liberty'. 'Liberty is a very valuable and precious right guaranteed by the Constitution of India. It cannot be bartered on this useless technicality. We only hope no other convict or undertrial is languishing in jail on account of such technicality,' said the bench. The court was hearing a petition filed by Aftab, who had been charged under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. He had secured bail from the Supreme Court on April 29, followed by a release order from the trial court on May 27. However, he was not released, as the jail authorities refused to act on the order, citing the absence of a specific sub-section – Section 5(1), in the trial court's release directive. On Tuesday, the court summoned the Uttar Pradesh director general (prisons) to appear virtually and directed the Ghaziabad jail superintendent to be present in person. Representing the state, additional advocate general (AAG) Garima Parshad informed the court that Aftab had finally been released at 8.42pm on Tuesday, after a corrected release order was issued mentioning Section 5(1) of the 2021 Act. The bench, however, was far from satisfied. 'The whole episode, to say the least, is unfortunate,' the bench remarked in its order. 'Each stakeholder in the process was aware of the sections involved, the crime number, and the offences with which the petitioner was charged. In spite of this, the applicant has been sent on a spin.' Concerned that the delay might not be a mere bureaucratic lapse, the court sought a deeper investigation and questioned whether there was a 'vested interest' in keeping the petitioner in custody. While Parshad said that an internal enquiry had been initiated by the DIG Prisons, Meerut, the court insisted on a judicial probe. It requested the Allahabad high court to appoint the principal district and sessions judge (PDSJ), Ghaziabad, to investigate the circumstances that led to the prolonged detention. The bench directed the PDSJ to determine whether the absence of a sub-clause in the order was indeed the real cause for the delay or whether gross negligence—or something 'more sinister'—was to blame. The enquiry will also identify any prison officials responsible for the lapse. Parshad argued that jail officials had merely followed precedent, citing an Allahabad high court ruling that required release orders to mention all applicable provisions. But the Supreme Court dismissed this claim after reviewing the HC order. 'Contrary to what the AAG contends, the high court's ruling clearly states that if the bail order sufficiently mentions the case or sessions trial number, then no further detail is needed to release the prisoner,' it noted. 'For a non-issue, the applicant has lost his liberty for at least 28 full days,' the bench noted. 'The only way to remedy the situation is to order an ad hoc compensation.' Accordingly, the court directed the state to pay Aftab ₹ 5 lakh as interim compensation, adding that the final amount would be determined after the judicial enquiry report is submitted. DG (prisons), appearing virtually, was directed to issue a statewide instruction to all jails to interpret release orders substantively rather than fixating on minor technicalities. The bench also recorded the DG's assurance that a broader review will be undertaken to identify other cases where liberty may have been wrongfully denied. Aftab had married a Hindu woman in January 2024 in a temple as per Hindu rites. On a complaint lodged by the woman's aunt, he was arrested on January 10, 2024, and subsequently charge-sheeted for kidnapping and for religious conversion through fraud. Following the release order, Aftab's family had approached prison officials to secure his release, only to be informed that the jail register entries did not match the provisions cited in the Supreme Court's order or the trial court's release direction. This prompted the present application before the top court.
Indian Express
25-06-2025
- Indian Express
‘Liberty…can't be bartered on technicalities': SC directs judicial probe into delay in releasing prisoner who got bail
Underlining that 'liberty is a very valuable and precious right guaranteed to a person', the Supreme Court Wednesday asked the Principal District Judge, Ghaziabad, to inquire into jail authorities' delay in releasing a prisoner to whom it had granted bail. The jail authorities had allegedly cited the technical ground that the bail order did not mention the sub-clause of the provision under which the man was charged. Directing the inquiry, a bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and N K Singh said, 'While episode is unfortunate. Each one of the stakeholders was aware what the offence was, what the crime number was, what the sections the applicant was charged with. In spite of this, the applicant has been sent on a spin and notwithstanding the order of this Court on April 29 (2025) and the release order of May 27 (2025), which to our mind was clear as daylight, the applicant has been released only on June 24 (2025).' 'Liberty is a very valuable and precious right guaranteed to a person. It cannot be bartered on these useless technicalities,' the bench said. It also directed the state of Uttar Pradesh to pay provisional compensation of Rs 5 lakh to the petitioner, Aftab, for loss of liberty due to the delay in releasing him. 'The authorities knew what the concerned section was and they themselves moved for correction. The net result is on this non-issue, the applicant has lost his liberty for at least 28 whole days. The only way we can remedy the situation is to order ad hoc monetary compensation… We order that the State of Uttar Pradesh pay a sum of Rs 5 lakh and report compliance on June 27,' the Supreme Court ordered. The bench made it clear that the compensation already ordered 'will be provisional in nature' and that the final compensation amount would be calculated after the inquiry, and if any official is held responsible, the court would decide what portion of it should be paid by the official. The court said, 'We only hope that no other convict/undertrial is languishing in jail on account of a similar technicality.' It added that the 'Director General (Prisons) has assured enquiry would be conducted on this aspect and it would be made sure that nobody suffers on this count.' The accused was arrested for offences under section 366 (kidnapping or inducing woman to marry) of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3/5(i) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act. He approached the apex court, saying that he was not released as clause (1) of section 5 of the 2021 Act was not mentioned in the order, and sought modification of the April 29 order. Hearing the matter on Tuesday, the Supreme Court asked the superintendent jailer of Ghaziabad district prison to appear before it in person, and the Uttar Pradesh director general of police (prisons) to appear through videoconferencing to ascertain what exactly happened. On Wednesday, UP Additional Advocate General (AAG) Garima Prashad said the petitioner was released on Tuesday evening. Justice Viswanathan, however, asked, 'Is sub-section not mentioned a valid ground to be taken by officers who are manning our prisons?' The court said that what needs to be looked into is the 'substance of the order' and not 'minor and irrelevant errors'. 'When there is no difficulty in identifying the prisoner and offences, nitpicking on court orders and on that pretext not implementing them and keeping the individual behind the bar would be a serious dereliction of duty,' the bench said in its order. 'If you keep people behind bars for this reason, what message are we sending?,' Justice Viswanathan asked, and wondered, 'What is the guarantee that many other people are not languishing for this reason?' The DG (prisons) assured the court that prison officials would be sensitised so that such instances would never recur. Prashad, meanwhile, referred to an Allahabad High Court judgment which said that release orders must be issued only after verifying the particulars. But the bench pointed out that the judgment dealt with an issue of forged orders. The AAG said DG (prisons) has instituted an enquiry at the level of deputy inspector general (DIG) of police, Meerut. However, the court said that a judicial enquiry would be more appropriate.
