MP: Three arrested for selling blood outside Satna hospital after children found HIV positive
Satna (MP) (PTI): Three people were arrested on Thursday for their alleged involvement in the sale of blood outside the government hospital in Satna where six children have been found to have contracted HIV during transfusion, officials said.
The racket was busted by sending a decoy customer, and probe was on as to whether any of the employees of the blood bank at the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Government Hospital was involved in the illegal trade, they said.
"There were frequent complaints of people offering to sell blood outside the hospital. Following this, a person was sent as a buyer for verification," sub-divisional magistrate Rahul Siladia told PTI Videos.
A man offered him a unit of blood for Rs 4,500 and was arrested during the actual transaction, the SDM said, adding that two more people were arrested following his questioning.
The police also shot a video of the transaction.
A police officer identified the accused as Ranjeet Sahu, Mohammad Kaif and Anil Gupta. Police were investigating whether the any staff member of the hospital's blood bank was involved in this trade, he added.
In a shocking revelation, six children treated at the hospital for thalassemia -- which requires periodic blood transfusion -- were on December 16 found to have contracted HIV after receiving contaminated blood.
The Madhya Pradesh government has formed a six-member committee to investigate this matter.
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.
HC seeks mechanism on disclosure of complaints against judges after SC says no data maintained
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court sought suggestions for a framework to balance transparency and judicial independence on April 1, after the Supreme Court submitted that it does not maintain judge-specific data on complaints alleging corruption or misconduct.
The submission was made by Advocate Rukhmini Bobde. He appeared for the Supreme Court’s Central Public Information Officer, before Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav in a petition filed by journalist and RTI activist Saurav Das. The case concerns an RTI application filed by Das in April 2023 seeking information on whether any complaints had been received against Justice T. Raja, former Acting Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, and if so, the number of such complaints and action taken.
According to a detailed report published by The Wire, the CPIO declined the request and stated that the information was “not maintained in the manner as sought for.” The first appellate authority upheld the decision. Although the Central Information Commission remanded the matter, the CPIO reaffirmed the refusal on similar grounds, which led Das to move the high court through Advocate Prashant Bhushan.
At the hearing, Justice Kaurav observed that the issue had wider institutional implications. It directed both sides to propose a mechanism that would protect the reputation of judges while ensuring public access to information regarding the handling of complaints. The case, Saurav Das v. CPIO, Supreme Court of India has been listed for further hearing on May 7.
During the arguments, Bhushan cited numbers released by the Union Law Ministry in Parliament in February 2026, which said that 8,630 complaints had been filed against sitting judges between 2016 and 2025. The Supreme Court provided data showing that complaints increased from 729 in 2016 to 1,102 in 2025. Bhushan questioned how aggregate data could be calculated without identifying the judges against whom complaints were filed.
Bobde responded that the data shared with Parliament reflected only total complaints against all sitting judges and did not involve judge-wise categorisation. She referred to the RTI request as a "fishing and roving inquiry." She also claimed that the Registry could not be forced to spend resources to collect material that was not stored in the format sought. She referenced the 2019 Constitution Bench decision in Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, which allows for rejection if compliance will disproportionately divert resources, as her justification.
The high court questioned how no judge-specific information was maintained and expressed concern that disclosure of large aggregate figures without clarity on how complaints were handled could affect public perception. Justice Kaurav noted that an applicant could not be denied information solely on technical grounds relating to format.
Bhushan argued that the RTI request did not seek details of complaint contents or collegium deliberations but merely whether complaints were received and what action followed, submitting that transparency in the handling of complaints was essential to maintain public confidence.
The Supreme Court’s in-house procedure for examining complaints, adopted in 1999, provides for scrutiny by the Chief Justice of India and, where warranted, inquiry by a committee of judges. There is no statutory requirement for public reporting of outcomes.
