SC takes note of Centre's guidelines, says posters not to be affixed outside homes of COVID patients
New Delhi, Dec 9: The Supreme Court on Wednesday took note of the Centre's guidelines and said posters and signages should not be affixed by authorities outside homes of COVID-19 patients in the country.
The apex court, however, added that such posters can be affixed only in specific cases when the competent authority issues specific directions under the Disaster Management Act.
A bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan said this in its verdict on a plea seeking directions to do away with the practice of pasting posters outside homes of those infected by coronavirus.
The bench, also comprising justices R S Reddy and M R Shah, disposed of the plea, saying the Centre has already issued guidelines, and therefore, states and union territories should not affix such posters.
The Centre had earlier told the top court that its guidelines do not contain any instructions regarding affixing posters and signages outside homes of COVID-19 patients, and there cannot be any stigma attached to it.
The bench had reserved its judgement on the plea on December 3.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had on December 3 referred to the affidavit filed in the apex court by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) and told the bench that guidelines do not require any such affixation of posters.
The counsel appearing for petitioner Kush Kalra had told the apex court that there are no such instructions in the guidelines to affix posters outside the home of those found COVID positive but the reality is very different .
While hearing the matter on December 1, the top court had observed that once posters or signages are pasted outside the homes of COVID patients, the people affected are treated as "untouchables", reflecting a different "ground reality".
In its affidavit, the ministry had said that its guidelines do not contain any instructions or guidance regarding affixing of posters or other signage outside the residences of those found COVID positive .
Mehta had told the bench that the Centre has not prescribed this practice and some states might be pursuing it on their own to prevent the spread of the virus.
The apex court had earlier asked the Centre to consider issuing guidelines to do away with practice of pasting posters outside the homes of COVID-19 patients.
It had directed so without issuing any formal notice to the Centre on Kalra's plea seeking framing of guidelines in this regard.
In its affidavit, the ministry has said that all states have been intimated to this effect that the MoHFW has not issued any such guideline to identify COVID-19 patients.
The Central government, through MoHFW has already communicated to the Additional Chief Secretaries ...secretaries (Health) of all the states and UTs pointing it out that the MoHFW guidelines do not contain any instructions or guidance regarding affixing of posters or other signage outside the residences of those found COVID-19 positive, the affidavit said.
On November 3, the Delhi government had told the high court that it has instructed all its officials not to paste posters outside homes of COVID-19 positive persons or those in home isolation; and the ones pasted have been ordered to be removed.
Kalra, in his plea before the high court, had contended that names of persons who tested positive for COVID-19 were being freely circulated to the Resident Welfare Associations and on WhatsApp groups and this was "leading to stigmatisation and drawing of unnecessary attention".
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.
Trump sues BBC for USD 10 billion, alleges defamation over edited Jan 6 speech
Washington (AP): President Donald Trump filed a lawsuit Monday seeking USD 10 billion in damages from the BBC, accusing the British broadcaster of defamation as well as deceptive and unfair trade practices.
The 33-page lawsuit accuses the BBC of broadcasting a “false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump,” calling it “a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence” the 2024 US presidential election.
It accused the BBC of “splicing together two entirely separate parts of President Trump's speech on January 6, 2021” in order to ”intentionally misrepresent the meaning of what President Trump said.”
The lawsuit, filed in a Florida court, seeks USD 5 billion in damages for defamation and USD 5 billion for unfair trade practices.
The BBC did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Associated Press.
The broadcaster apologised last month to Trump over the edit of the Jan. 6 speech. But the publicly funded BBC rejected claims it had defamed him, after Trump threatened legal action.
BBC chairman Samir Shah had called it an “error of judgment,” which triggered the resignations of the BBC's top executive and its head of news.
The speech took place before some of Trump's supporters stormed the US Capitol as Congress was poised to certify President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election that Trump falsely alleged was stolen from him.
The BBC had broadcast the hourlong documentary — titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” — days before the 2024 US presidential election. It spliced together three quotes from two sections of the 2021 speech, delivered almost an hour apart, into what appeared to be one quote in which Trump urged supporters to march with him and “fight like hell.” Among the parts cut out was a section where Trump said he wanted supporters to demonstrate peacefully.
Trump said earlier Monday that he was suing the BBC “for putting words in my mouth.”
“They actually put terrible words in my mouth having to do with Jan. 6 that I didn't say, and they're beautiful words that I said, right?" the president said unprompted during an appearance in the Oval Office. "They're beautiful words, talking about patriotism and all of the good things that I said. They didn't say that, but they used terrible words.”
The president's lawsuit was filed in Florida. Deadlines to bring the case in British courts expired more than a year ago.
Legal experts have brought up potential challenges to a case in the US, given that the documentary was not shown in the country.
The lawsuit alleges that people in the US can watch the BBC's original content, including the “Panorama” series, which includes the documentary, by using the subscription streaming platform BritBox or a virtual private network service.
The 103-year-old BBC is a national institution funded through an annual license fee of 174.50 pounds (USD 230) paid by every household that watches live TV or BBC content. Bound by the terms of its charter to be impartial, it typically faces especially intense scrutiny and criticism from both conservatives and liberals.
