Panaji, May 30: A Kerala native, who was quarantined in an isolation ward of a Goa hospital after he developed symptoms similar to those affected by the Nipah virus, has been discharged after his test results proved negative.

"He has been discharged after tests results received from the National Institute of Virology in Pune, tested him negative for Nipah," a state Health Ministry spokesperson said on Wednesday.

The 20-year-old had walked into the Goa Medical College on Monday after deboarding a train originating from Kerala fearing that he had developed Nipah-like symptoms.

NiV is transmitted through direct contact with infected bats, pigs or from other NiV-infected people.

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.



Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has struck down the central government's plan to establish a fact-checking unit (FCU) under the Information Technology Amendment Rules, 2023. The decision comes in response to a petition filed by standup comedian Kunal Kamra, challenging the constitutional validity of the Centre's move.

Justice A.S. Chandurkar, delivering the final verdict, declared that the proposed IT Amendment Rules violated key provisions of the Indian Constitution, namely Articles 14 (right to equality), 19 (freedom of speech and expression), and 19(1)(g) (right to profession).

“I have considered the matter extensively. The impugned rules are violative of Articles 14, 19, and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India,” Justice Chandurkar said in his judgment. He further remarked that terms like "fake, false, and misleading" in the IT Rules were "vague" and lacked a clear definition, making them unconstitutional.

This judgment followed a split verdict issued by a division bench of the Bombay High Court in January. The bench, consisting of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale, was divided in their opinions. While Justice Patel ruled that the IT Rules amounted to censorship and struck them down, Justice Gokhale upheld the rules, arguing that they did not pose a "chilling effect" on free speech, as the petitioners had claimed.

The matter was then referred to a third judge, leading to today's decision. The Supreme Court had previously stayed the Centre's notification that would have made the fact-checking unit operational, stating that the government could not proceed until the Bombay High Court ruled on the case.

Kunal Kamra and other petitioners had argued that the amendments posed unreasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression. They contended that the provisions would lead to government-led censorship, effectively granting the government unchecked powers to determine what constitutes 'truth' online. The petitioners further claimed that such powers would turn the government into "prosecutor, judge, and executioner" in matters of online content.

With the Bombay High Court’s ruling, the Centre's move to create fact-checking units has been effectively halted, reaffirming the importance of protecting freedom of speech and expression in the digital space.