Car crash in Cairo sets off fire at hospital, kills 19
Cairo: A multiple-car crash set off an explosion that ignited a fire at Egypt's main cancer hospital and caused 19 deaths, the government said.
The health ministry said 30 others were injured by the crash near Cairo's famed Tahrir Square late Sunday. The Interior Ministry said in a statement that a vehicle driving outside the National Cancer Institute collided with up to three other vehicles, causing the explosion.
The blast caused a fire in the hospital, where at least 54 patients were evacuated to other hospitals. The fire was later brought under control, with television footage Monday morning showing shattered windows and doors. The health ministry did not say if hospital patients or staff were among the casualties.
Why the crash caused such a large explosion wasn't immediately clear.
"We heard an explosion and ... the bank entrance glass was shattered everywhere," said Abdel-Rahman Mohamed, a security officer at a bank at the opposite side of the hospital.
The health ministry said the injured people were taken to hospitals for treatment.
Road accidents are common in Egypt. The country's official statistics agency says 8,000 crashes last year caused more than 3,000 deaths and 12,000 injuries.
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.
SC delivers split verdict on Section 17A of PC Act mandating sanction to probe govt servants
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a split verdict on the constitutional validity of a 2018 provision of the anti-graft law which mandates prior sanction for initiating a probe against a government servant in a corruption case.
While Justice BV Nagarathna said Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is unconstitutional and needs to be struck down, Justice KV Viswanathan held the provision as constitutional while stressing on the need to protect honest officers.
Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, introduced in July 2018, bars any “enquiry or inquiry or investigation” against a public servant for recommendations made in discharge of official duties without prior approval from the competent authority.
The top court's judgement came on a PIL filed by NGO 'Centre for Public Interest Litigation' (CPIL) against the validity of amended section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Requirement of prior sanction is contrary to the Prevention of Corruption Act, forecloses inquiry and protects corrupt, Justice Nagarathna said.
ALSO READ: Snag hits Akasa Air Pune-Bengaluru flight ahead of departure; airline deplanes passengers
"Section 17A is unconstitutional and it ought to be struck down. No prior approval is required to be taken... The requirement of prior sanction is contrary to the object of the Act, and it forecloses inquiry and protects the corrupt rather than seeking to protect the honest and those with integrity who really do not require any protection," Justice Nagarathna said.
Justice Viswanathan said striking down section 17A will be akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water and the “cure will be worse than the disease”.
"Section 17A is constitutionally valid subject to the condition that the sanction must be decided by the Lok Pal or the Lokayukta of the State...
"The safeguard of this provision will strengthen the hands of honest officers but also ensure that the corrupt are brought to book. It will guarantee that the administrative machinery attracts the best talent for the service of the nation,"Justice Viswanathan said.
The case will now be placed before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant for forming a larger bench to hear the matter for a final decision.
"Having regard to the divergent opinions expressed by us, we direct the Registry to place this matter before the Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate bench to consider the issues which arise in this matter afresh," the bench said.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO, had argued that the provisions crippled the anti-corruption law as sanctions were not usually forthcoming from the government, which was the ‘competent authority’.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had appeared for the Union government.
