Saudi Arabia bans flights to and from India due to COVID-19 outbreak
New Delhi: Saudi Arabia has banned flights to and from India from Tuesday amid a surge in coronavirus cases, according to an official document.
In a circular issued on Tuesday, Saudi Arabia's General Authority of Civil Aviation (GACA) said it was "suspending travel to and from the following countries: (India, Brazil and Argentina) including any person who has been in any of the mentioned countries above in the last 14 days prior to their arrival to the Kingdom".
However, it excluded "passengers who have official government invitations .
The GACA circular -- titled: Suspension of travel to countries where the COVID-19 virus has outbreak' -- was marked to all the airlines and chartered flight companies operating at the Saudi Arabia's airports.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE host a significant Indian migrant population.
Five days back, Air India Express had said the Dubai Civil Aviation Authority (DCAA) suspended its flights for 24 hours for bringing two passengers with COVID-positive certificates on August 28 and September 4.
Dubai is the most populous city of the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
Scheduled international passenger flights have been suspended in India since March 23 due to the outbreak. However, special international flights have been operating between India and Saudi Arabia since May 6 under the Vande Bharat mission.
India's COVID-19 caseload has reached 56,46,010, and the death toll has climbed to 90,020 with 1,085 people succumbing to the disease in the past 24 hours, the Health Ministry's data updated at 8 am Wednesday showed.
After one-day suspension for bringing passengers with COVID-positive certificates, Air India Express resumed its Dubai flights on Saturday.
According to rules of the UAE government, every passenger travelling from India is required to bring an original COVID-negative certificate of an RT-PCR test done within 96 hours prior to the journey.
Hong Kong has banned Air India flights from Sunday to October 3 after a few passengers on its flight on Friday tested positive for COVID-19 post arrival, a senior government official said on Sunday.
Air India passenger flights were barred from landing in Hong Kong between August 18 and August 31 after 14 passengers on its Delhi-Hong Kong flight of August 14 tested positive for COVID-19 post arrival.
Passengers from India can arrive in Hong Kong only if they have a COVID-19 negative certificate from a test done within 72 hours prior to the journey, according to rules issued by the Hong Kong government in July.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Stray dogs case: SC refuses to go into allegation of harassment of women dog feeders
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Friday said it would not go into the allegations of harassment of women dog feeders and caregivers by purported anti-feeder vigilantes since it was a law-and-order issue and the aggrieved persons could lodge FIRs about it.
Hearing arguments in the stray dogs case, the apex court also refused to go into the claims about certain derogatory remarks being made about women in the issue.
A three-judge special bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria observed that some of the arguments made before it were "far from reality" and there were a number of videos of stray dogs attacking children and the elderly.
The top court was hearing arguments on pleas, including the ones filed by dog lovers, seeking modification of its earlier orders and those for stringent compliance with the directives.
Senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani highlighted the plight of women dog feeders and caregivers and said anti-feeder vigilantes have assumed the role of enforcing the apex court's order passed earlier in the matter. "Under the garb of this, they are harassing women, they are molesting women, and they are beating women," she said.
Justice Nath observed, "Lodge an FIR against them. Who stops you?"
The bench said that if anyone was harassing or molesting women, it was a crime, and the aggrieved person could set the criminal law in motion by lodging an FIR.
When Pavani referred to an incident where a dog feeder was attacked in her house, the bench said, "All this is a criminal offence. You lodge an FIR against that".
"We can't take up these individual cases where something is going wrong somewhere. This court is not going to monitor that. That is a law-and-order problem," Justice Nath observed.
Pavani said that in Haryana, certain societies hired bouncers to remove dog feeders, and a woman was slapped in Ghaziabad, but no FIR was lodged.
"We are not going to accept this. If a criminal offence is committed, an FIR will be registered. There are procedures available to you, remedies available, and how to get it registered," the bench said.
The senior advocate flagged the issue of unregulated breeding and exotic imports.
"Again, this has nothing to do with the stray dogs issue. There are remedies in the Act and the rules. Don't make this a platform for other objects. You address us on the issues which we are dealing with in this matter," the bench said.
It said the import of the top court's order was very clear, and it was restricted to stray dogs only. "Tomorrow, you will say why Cheetahs have been imported to Kuno (national park). Why not take care of the local breeds? This is too much. Sorry," Justice Mehta said.
When Pavani argued that derogatory remarks were being made regarding women in the matter, the bench said, "How is that relevant in this context?"
"Even though we are being criticised in very derogatory language, we don't react," Justice Nath said, adding that one can take action on this issue.
"We have not given any kind of licence to people to talk like this. If they are talking like this, you take action against them," the bench said.
The bench also heard submissions of other lawyers, including senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi and Shadan Farasat, in the matter.
When one of the lawyers referred to a dog at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), the bench asked whether it was taken even to the operation theatre.
"Any dog on the street is bound to have ticks. And a dog with ticks in a hospital, do you understand what disastrous consequences would befall?" the bench posed. "Don't try to glorify that there was a dog at AIIMS".
Singhvi said this was now not entirely a matter about dogs or humans, and it was about certain constitutional principles.
At the fag end of the hearing, a lawyer said he has put up videos if the court would like to see them. "There are 'n' number of videos on YouTube of dogs attacking children, dogs attacking old people," the bench observed.
The hearing in the matter remained inconclusive and would continue on January 13.
While hearing arguments on Thursday, the bench said it had not directed the removal of every dog from the streets, and the directive was to treat stray canines according to the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules.
It had earlier flagged the non-compliances of rules and directions by civic bodies and said people were dying not only due to dog bites alone in the country but also because of accidents caused by stray animals on roads.
Taking note of the "alarming rise" in dog bite incidents within institutional areas such as educational institutions, hospitals and railway stations, the apex court on November 7 directed relocation of stray canines forthwith to designated shelters after due sterilisation and vaccination.
It also said stray dogs picked up shall not be released back in the place they were picked up. It directed the authorities to ensure the removal of all cattle and other stray animals from the state highways, national highways and expressways.
The top court is hearing a suo motu case, initiated on July 28 last year, over a media report on stray dog bites leading to rabies, particularly among children, in the national capital.
_vb_27.jpeg)