BROADCASTING MEDIA PRODUCTION COMPANY,PUBLISHER,NON -PROFIT ORGANISATION

KSM CHANNEL / GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE HUMAN OPINION " We are an international online news media, providing news with a India perspective to a worldwide audience through Multiple cross-platform editions, Multiple with distinct live TV channels". kanishk Channel is designed to create this grounded knowledge that is the need of the hour across Indian. The sites of this creation are the five interdisciplinary, each of which will focus on a particular transformational theme: Governance, Human Development, Economic Development, Systems and Infrastructure, and Environment and Sustainability. Each of the Schools has concrete pathways to impact. These are drawn from specific epistemic traditions linked to disciplines and innovative inter-sectoral, intersectional, and interdisciplinary approaches. The key common imperative, however, is to ground knowledge creation and pedagogy in the Indian context and for developing countries across the world, Renewing the civil rights movement by bringing the world of ideas and action. We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure.
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts

Monday, 25 October 2021

Despite FDA Approval, E-Cigarettes Need To Remain Banned in India

 

Vaping has the potential to introduce a large number of young individuals to a life-long nicotine habit, putting them on a highway to future tobacco abuse.

Tuesday, 12 October 2021

'Poor Implementation of RTI Act During Pandemic Affected Information Flow': Report

 

A report released by Satark Nagrik Sangathan has revealed that defunct information commissions, huge vacancies and high pendency of cases have marked the implementation of RTI during the pandemic.

Monday, 4 October 2021

Apex Court: Right to refuse DNA Test emanates from Right to Privacy

 DNA test 

The Supreme Court has said that DNA tests should not be ordered routinely but only in deserving cases.

Forcing an unwilling party to undergo a DNA test infringes the personal liberty and right to privacy of the individual, the Apex Court added.

In situations in which other evidence is available to prove or disprove a relationship, courts should refrain from ordering blood tests, the Supreme Court stated on Friday.

Barring twins, DNA is unique for each individual and can be used to trace family linkages, expose sensitive health information and gather data on a person’s identity, the bench said.

"Whether a person can be compelled to provide a sample for DNA in such matters can also be answered considering the test of proportionality laid down in the unanimous decision of this Court in K S Puttaswamy v Union of India, wherein the right to privacy has been declared a constitutionally protected right in India," the bench comprising of Justice R Subhash Reddy and Justice Hrishikesh Roy stated.


Therefore, courts need to examine the proportionality of the legitimate aims being pursued when ordering a DNA test, the Supreme Court said. This includes whether it is arbitrary or discriminatory, whether it may have an adverse impact on the person and whether the encroachment upon the privacy and personal autonomy of the person being subjected to the DNA test is justified.

Brief Facts of Case

This verdict came on an appeal filed by Ashok Kumar. He is seeking a declaration of ownership of the property left behind by late Trilok Chand Gupta and late Sona Devi.

He has claimed to be the son of Trilok Chand Gupta and Sona Devi. However, the defendants in the case — the couple’s three daughters — denied that Ashok Kumar was the son of their parents in a written statement. Hence, he is disentitled from a share in the property, they said.


During the trial, the defendants sought a DNA test of Ashok Kumar in order to prove or disprove a biological link between the defendants and the plaintiff.

However, Ashok Kumar opposed the plea for a DNA test and stated that he had produced adequate documentary evidence to support his claim. The trial court said that he could not be compelled to undergo the test.


Source Link

Read Judgement 

 

 

 

Saturday, 2 October 2021

Can’t force anybody for DNA test, impinges on Right to Privacy, says Apex Court

 DNA test 

No one can be forced by Courts to undergo a DNA test, the Apex Court said on Friday, noting that it not only impinges on an individual’s privacy but can also lead to major societal repercussions for the person.

The order came on a plea filed by a man who was directed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana to undergo a DNA test to prove his claim for a share in the property of his biological parents.

His claim was disputed by the couple’s 3 daughters, who denied that the man was their brother, and said that he wasn't the son of their parents. The women first demanded a DNA test of the man in a Court in Kalka, and moved the HC after the Trial Judge declined to grant their request.

When a DNA test was allowed by the high court in March 2019, the petitioner Ashok Kumar approached the Supreme Court.

While deciding the appeal, a bench of Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy said, “In circumstances where other evidence is available to prove or dispute the relationship, the court should ordinarily refrain from ordering blood tests. This is because such tests impinge upon the right of privacy of an individual and could also have major societal repercussions.”


Setting aside the High Court order, it added, “When the plaintiff is unwilling to subject himself to the DNA test, forcing him to undergo one would impinge on his personal liberty and his right to privacy. Seen from this perspective, the impugned judgment merits interference and is set aside.”

In its order, the Punjab & Haryana HC held in 2019 that a DNA test is a “double-edged sword”, and since Kumar was so sure about his parentage, there was no reason for him to shy away or shirk from taking it.

However, Kumar refused to undergo the test and said he was willing to defend his suit on documentary evidence.


“The DNA test is directed in civil cases only in exceptional circumstances as a matter of last resort. Its evidentiary value is considered along with the entire circumstances of the case. A person can choose not to undergo the DNA test. In such cases, the courts can draw an adverse inference against the party for refusing the test. But by this judgment, the court has examined the DNA test in the light of right to privacy. It will now be difficult for courts below to insist upon DNA test,” SC Lawyer Anirudh Sharma said.


Source Link 

Thursday, 30 September 2021

Union Government's Revised Vaccine Policy Still Violates National Interest

 

The failure of the private sector in vaccine administration shows why the Union government should procure 100% of the COVID-19 vaccines and adopt a policy of uniform pricing.

Monday, 27 September 2021

HC denies bail to the accused alleged for conspiring and making false Covid-19 report and forging such certificates

 Delhi High Court and Corona.jpg 

On 21st September, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Anu Malhotra rejected a bail application of the accused charged in relation to the allegations levelled against him qua the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B/198/199/200/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that his son conspiracy for making of the false COVID 19 report and also because there was recovery of devices used in making such a forged certificate.

Facts of the case:

The present petition was filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, seeking the grant of anticipatory bail in relation to FIR No. 151/2021, Police Station Special Cell, registered under Sections 120B/198/199/200/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, submitting to the effect that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case and has no role whatsoever to play in relation to the allegations levelled against him qua the alleged commission of offences.

Contention of the Applicant:

The following contention has been submitted by the applicant:


  1. It was submitted that the applicant herein filed an application seeking grant of interim bail on 28.05.2021 dated 27.05.2021 on the ground that his father, i.e., the applicant herein, had tested positive for COVID-19.
  2. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that after a general inquiry he was assured that the medical document was verifiable and a genuine document and as a counsel, he neither had reasons nor resources to verify the authenticity of the document in question.

Contention of the respondent:

The state rejected the bail application on the following:

  1. It was submitted that during the investigation conducted it was found that the petitioner had received the COVID negative report from the witness Prem Chand.
  2. On behalf of the State it is submitted that this mobile number belongs to Gaurav Aggarwal but that the State is yet to verify the same.

Observation and judgment of the court:


The following observation has been made by the hon’ble bench of the court:

 

  1. On a consideration of the submissions that have been made on behalf of either side, though the State is yet to verify whether the Mobile No. belongs to Gaurav Aggarwal and Amanda Studio.
  2. The applicant’s presence is required through his custodial interrogation to trace out the links in the chain of the alleged conspiracy for making of the false COVID 19 report and recovery of devices used in making such a forged certificate.

In the light of the above, the court rejected the bail application.

Read Judgment ;

 

 

source ; .latestlaws.com/

Friday, 24 September 2021

Post-COVID, Woman-Headed Households Are Left to Battle Paperwork and a Sexist System

 

Women who have found themselves in charge of a family after the sudden deaths of family members find rules, regulations and laws making mockery of their situation.

Thursday, 23 September 2021

Rs. 50,000 Ex-Gratia to Families of Covid Victims: Centre to SC

 Covid Patient.jpeg 

The Central Govt. in the case titled Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India informed the Supreme Court that the State Govt. will provide ₹50,000 Ex-Gratia compensation to kin of those who died due to Covid.

The Central Govt. has also informed the Supreme Court that the amount per death will also include those who were involved in relief operation and preparedness activities, subject to the cause of death being certified as Covid-19. The funds will be paid by the States from the State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF).

The Central Govt. has further informed the Apex Court that Ex-Gratia will be given, subject to the cause of death being certified as Covid-19 as per the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and ICMR.

It was also informed that the concerned families will submit their claims through a form issued by the State Authority along with specified documents including the death certificate that certifies the cause of death to be COVID-19. The DDMA will ensure that the process of claim, verification, sanction and the final disbursement of ex-gratia payment will be through robust yet simple and people friendly procedure.

 SOURCE ; https://www.latestlaws.com


Wednesday, 22 September 2021

Covid-19: HC green lights Delhi Govt's high-powered Panel to probe ‘oxygen deaths'

 Oxygen 

Clearing the decks for a high-powered committee set up by the AAP government to look into deaths by alleged medical oxygen shortage during the second wave of Covid-19, Delhi high court on Tuesday said it saw no difficulty in such a probe.

The court, dealing with a plea to operationalise the committee, which was earlier put on hold by the LG, took note of the stand of the state government that the committee will not attribute any fault to any hospital and any compensation will be paid and absorbed by the government alone.

It further recorded that according to the AAP government, the criteria for determining compensation will be open to scrutiny and its task would not overlap with that of a sub-group constituted by Supreme Court on allocation and utilisation of oxygen.

Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh, while dealing with the LG’s objections, observed that the “intent of the government in issuing the May 27 order (constituting the panel) is not to grant an ex gratia amount to a Covid-19 victim” but to “examine each complaint/representation on the death of a Covid-19 patient due to lack of oxygen.”

The HC pointed out that the Delhi government has “expressed its intention to reinstate” the committee but “due to the difference in opinion (with regard to the scope of its mandate) between the council of ministers and the LG, the stalemate is continuing.”


During the course of the hearing, the bench said that it will “permit it (committee) to go on” only if the Delhi government clarifies that the compensation would be paid by them without fixing any liability on the hospitals.

“The issue here is a legal issue. Can you determine a fault-based liability by a committee (and) fix liability on a third party, which not only puts a financial liability but tarnishes professional reputation,” the court questioned, adding that by claiming to fix liability, the government would enter the domain of the judiciary and medical council. “You can't do it,” it added.

Senior advocate Rahul Mehra, who was representing the Delhi government, clarified that the committee was only a “fact-finding committee” which would not attribute any fault or negligence to a hospital and “compensation was purely going from the government”.


The senior lawyer stated that the committee would, after calling for records and documents from the hospital concerned as well as seeking an explanation, examine a complaint/representation received by it from the family of a deceased patient and pass a reasoned order.

Additional solicitor general Sanjay Jain, representing the LG, urged the court to defer passing any order on the constitution of the committee and await guidelines on the grant of a uniform ex gratia compensation by the NDMA, pursuant to the apex court's order.

The HC responded that the Supreme Court-appointed committee were seized of the issue at the “macro level” while the committee proposed to look at “micro situations” while giving its go-ahead.
It was hearing a plea by Riti Singh Verma, who prayed for a direction to the Delhi government to operrationalise the committee and also refer her case to it for grant of compensation.

 Source Link

 

Friday, 10 September 2021

Covid-19: Delhi District Courts unable to check on over-crowding of Courtrooms, sparks fear

 Courts and COVID.png 

After district courts in the capital resumed partial physical hearings from August 24, the judges and court staff are struggling to check overcrowding of courtrooms. While some courts are able to enforce social distancing, others are terribly overcrowded, a risk when the battle against Covid-19 is yet over.

TOI visited the Patiala House Courts, Tis Hazari district courts, Karkardooma district courts and Saket district courts in the past two weeks and saw several instances of how the judge’s repeated requests to people to heed social distancing and vacate the courtroom fell into deaf ears.

At one proceedings in Tis Hazari, at least 20 lawyers, who were not parties to the case being heard, were present for the entire several-hours’ duration of the hearing.

It was only when the judge threatened to conduct the case in his chamber if the lawyers didn’t leave that some did.

In another instance at the Saket court, all those whose cases were listed before a judge that day were present with their counsels in the courtroom, more than 10 of them with their lawyers.

 Add to that, the police officers, court staff and the public prosecutor, and it was a veritable crowd there.

 

Similarly, in three courtrooms at Patiala House, the judges struggled to have the intransigent lawyers and clients stick of Covid protocols.

Senior advocate Rebecca John described this as a “serious problem”.


“Not all courts are overcrowded, but I have certainly gone to some courts that are crammed. That’s partly because of the architecture of the court — very small rooms, not enough space for the number of people there,” John said. “Criminal courts particularly should liberally exercise their powers to grant exemptions to accused persons.”

The senior counsel added that despite the numerous directions by the high courts to trial courts to exercise their power of exemption, the later appeared hesitant to do so.

“This is a serious problem. You cannot open courts without taking into account the potential for overcrowding and its impact on the spread of the virus,” John told TOI.


“In the few courts that I have physical gone to, particularly trial courts, my experience has been a mixed bag. Some have been okay, but most are way too overcrowded.”

Senior advocate Vikas Pahwa also said Covid protocols weren’t being “scrupulously” followed in the trial courts, primarily due to lack of space and the unending cases, pointing out how Delhi High Court didn’t have such problems because of its big corridors, glass partitions and use of microphones because of which mask weren’t required to be removed.

“Trial courts are accessible to the public and there is crowding. And invariably masks have to be taken off when arguing, exposing the judges, lawyers, clients and court staff to the risk of the coronavirus,” said Pahwa.


Advocate Vijay Aggarwal said Enforcement Directorate cases usually involved defendants in double digits.

“A courtroom with 10 clients and 10 lawyers besides the others and social distancing goes for a toss,” he remarked.

He, however, said the dual physical-and-video conferencing hearings were “too hard on lawyers”.


He said, “Managing cases in courts having physical hearings and then trying to be present for virtual hearings is a big problem for the lawyers.

According to advocate Manoj Taneja, a lot is expected from the presiding officers in the courtrooms in the matter of Covid-appropriate behaviour.

“The presiding officer is expected to control the crowd, including the lawyers and litigants,” he said.


“Some judges do deal with this strictly and refuse to start the hearing till only the lawyers concerned are left in the courtroom.”

Advocate Manish Bhadauria too felt that the judges should allow only those lawyers to enter whose cases were being heard.

“The court should call one accused at a time to mark their presence and then summon their counsels into the courtrooms to present their arguments,” Bhadauria added.

Source Link 

Covid-19 cases rise in Australian states – latest updates

 

Covid-19 has killed more than 4.6M people and infected almost 224M globally. Here are the latest coronavirus-related developments for September 10:

A sign advertises the availability of Covid-19 vaccine doses during a lockdown to curb an outbreak in Sydney, Australia, September 9, 2021.
A sign advertises the availability of Covid-19 vaccine doses during a lockdown to curb an outbreak in Sydney, Australia, September 9, 2021. (Reuters)

Friday, September 10, 2021

Cases rise in Australia's Victoria as regions exit lockdown

Australia's Victoria state has reported its biggest single-day rise in Covid-19 cases this year, the majority in Melbourne, as most other regions in the state exited lockdown.

Australia's New South Wales state, the epicentre of the country's worst outbreak, has reported 1,542 new locally acquired cases, its biggest one-day rise in the pandemic, topping the previous high of 1,533 hit last week.

Officials have announced plans to bring Melbourne and Sydney out of extended lockdowns in coming weeks, despite infections continuing to rise in both of the country's two biggest cities.

Victoria Premier Daniel Andrews, whose state reported 334 new locally acquired cases and one death, has said lockdown restrictions in Melbourne will not be eased until 70 percent of the adult population has received at least one vaccine dose, which is expected around September 23.

The shift to a strategy of living with, rather than suppressing, the virus after hitting national vaccine coverage of 70-80 percent is part of a four-stage national reopening plan unveiled by the federal government in July.

Los Angeles makes vaccines compulsory for school kids

Children aged 12 or over who attend public schools in Los Angeles will have to be fully vaccinated against Covid-19 by the start of next year, city education chiefs said, the first such requirement by a major education board in the United States.

The vote by the Los Angeles Unified School District – the second biggest in the country – comes as the United States grapples with surging coronavirus numbers, driven by the highly contagious Delta variant.

It also came as US President Joe Biden set out tough new nationwide rules designed to stanch the flood of new infections, ordering companies with 100 or more personnel to ensure all of them are vaccinated, and requiring that all federal employees and contractors also get the shots.

Brazil registers 753 deaths

Brazil has registered 753 Covid-19 deaths and 30,891 additional cases, according to data released by the nation's Health Ministry.

The South American country has now registered a total of 585,174 coronavirus deaths and 20,958,899 confirmed cases. 

Mexico reports 730 deaths

Mexico's Health Ministry has reported 14,828 new confirmed cases of Covid-19 in the country and 730 more deaths, bringing the total number of official infections since the pandemic began to 3,479,999 and the death toll to 266,150.

US doubles fines for travellers not wearing masks

The Transportation Security Administration is doubling fines for first-time offenders who fail to wear masks, effective on Friday, and said repeat offenders could face fines as high as $3,000.

The White House said President Biden was directing the higher fines to "ensure that masking requirements remain in place on the other modes of transportation as we continue to battle Covid-19."

TSA said the new fines will "be $500-$1,000 for first offenders and $1,000-$3,000 for second offenders."

Source: TRTWorld and agencies 

Tuesday, 7 September 2021

Medical Quota: Doctors from all over country opposes move. SC issues Notice on PIL

 Medical College 

On Monday, Five days before the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for all-India quota seats in undergraduate and postgraduate medical courses, the Supreme Court has entertained two PILs filed by doctors from 15 states and union territories challenging the Centre’s decision to introduce 27% OBC and 10% economically weaker section (EWS) reservations for these seats.

A bench comprising of Justice D Y Chandrachud, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Hima Kohli issued notices to the Centre, Medical Counselling Committee and National Board of Examination after hearing arguments made by senior advocates Arvind Datar and Vikas Singh, who appeared for the 27 doctors from Chhattisgarh, Goa, UP, Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Karnataka, Kerala, Chandigarh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Assam, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha and Punjab.

Recently, the Madras high court had upheld the 27% OBC reservation in all-India quota in government medical colleges across states but struck down the 10% EWS quota on the ground that it allowed the total reservation to go past the 50% ceiling. Datar said that these fresh writ petitions can be heard along with the petitions challenging the Madras HC order.
The petitioners said that in 2007, the Supreme Court had introduced a reservation of 15% for SCs and 7.5% for STs in the AIQ scheme.

With the introduction of the OBC and EWS quotas, the total reservation in AIQ seats would shore up to 59.5%, which would be in breach of the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Indra Sawhney case in which a constitution bench had capped the total reservation at 50% to prevent reverse discrimination of merit.

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the LatestLaws staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.) 


Source Link 

 

HC directs Centre to allow 2nd Dose of Covishield at 4 week's gap for 'those who want it'

 Covid Vaccine.jpg 

On Tuesday, the Kerala High Court ordered the Centre to allow a second dose of Covishield after a four-week gap instead of 12. The government was also asked to make changes to the CoWIN app to enable a reduced dose gap for "those who want it".

The order is for vaccines from private sources, not free shots given by the government. The court said the question was whether for private vaccinations, people could choose between "early protection or better protection".

"It is, however, made clear that I have not considered the question whether a person is entitled to make a choice between early protection and better protection from the Covid infection in the matter of accepting the free vaccine provided by the government," the Kerala High Court said.

"The interesting question that arises for consideration in this matter is whether a person covered by the National COVID Vaccination Program is entitled to make a choice between early protection and better protection from Covid in the matter of accepting paid vaccine."

The dose gap for Serum Institute of India's vaccine Covishield, the Indian version of the Oxford-AstraZeneca shot, was four to six weeks when nationwide vaccinations started in January. This was increased to six-eight weeks. In May, the government revised the dose gap to 12 to 16 weeks citing "real life evidence from the UK". The gap for the second vaccine to be used in India, Bharat Biotech's Covaxin, stayed unchanged.


The decision was questioned and many linked it to the massive shortage in vaccines when the second wave of Covid was at its peak in April-May. Some members of the national Covid task force also suggested the decision was not unanimous and that they had opposed doubling the dose gap.

The petitioners in this case are two companies - Kitex Garments and Kitex Childrenswear - with more than 10,000 employees. The companies say to protect workers and their families, they decided to vaccinate them without waiting for the government, and bought vaccines for Rs.52,30,680. The companies bought 12,000 more doses to give the second dose to employees.

Pointing out that the dose gap policy has changed twice since then, the companies told the court that because of the need to register for vaccination on CoWIN, they were unable to administer the second dose of the vaccine to their staff.


The petition pointed out that the Centre has relaxed the dose gap for students and others flying abroad and for sportspersons participating in the Olympics. The "privilege" was also extended to government officials, it said.

Kerala is battling a surge in Covid cases. The state is expecting daily cases to increase to up to 40,000 in the coming weeks.


Source Link 


Monday, 6 September 2021

SC not amused as Govt dragging its feet on Guidelines for Covid Death Certificates

 Covid Death.jpg 

The Supreme Court has pulled up the Centre over delay in framing guidelines for issuing death certificates to families of those who lost their lives due to the coronavirus disease (Covid-19), news agency PTI reported.

A 2-judge bench, comprising of Justice MR Shah and Justice Aniruddha Bose, directed the Union government to file a compliance report by September 11.

“We passed the order long time back, and have already extended the time once. By the time you frame the guidelines, the third phase will be over as well,” the bench observed.

It was referring to its June 30 order directing the appropriate authority to simplify the guidelines to issue death certificates which, it had said, should state the exact cause of death as “death due to Covid-19” to enable those who depended on the deceased to avail benefits of welfare schemes.

Appearing for the central government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the top court that “everything is under consideration.” However, advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal, who is one of the petitioners, argued that under the pretext of consideration, things should not be delayed further as the Centre was already granted a 4-week extension on August 16, but is now seeking further extension.


Advocate Sumeer Sodhi, who appeared for some other applicants, argued that the extension for the first direction, passed on June 30, was ending on September 8.

On this, the bench said it was adjourning the matter only for compliance with other directions. “Put up on September 13 as the Solicitor General seeks time to enable the Union of India to comply with the earlier order and place on record the compliance report of other directions placed by this court on June 30, 2021, on or before September 11,” it said.

The apex court’s primary instructions in the said order were for the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) to come up with guidelines, within six weeks, for ex-gratia assistance of family members of those who died due to Covid-19. The Centre, however, sought and received extension on the grounds that the NDMA’s consideration in this regard was at an “advanced stage” but required some more in-depth examination.


It was this “extension” that the advocates referred to in the latest hearing in the Supreme Court.

The court's order was on two separate petitions, one each by Bansal and Reepak Kansal. Later, four other intervenors, who lost their family members due to Covid-19, also moved court.

India’s official death toll due to the coronavirus disease is currently at 439,895, including 366 fatalities in the last 24 hours.

 Source Link

 

Sunday, 5 September 2021

Former Union Heath Secretary Keshav Desiraju Passes Away

 During his time working with the government, he played an important role during the drafting of the Mental Healthcare Bill, 2016.

 Former Union Heath Secretary Keshav Desiraju Passes Away 

Keshav Desiraju. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

 

New Delhi: Keshav Desiraju, an IAS officer who formerly served as India’s Union health secretary, passed away on Sunday morning. He was 66.

Desiraju retired as Union secretary in the Department of Consumer Affairs. He had previously worked in a variety of roles – in the Union government as well as the governments of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. He also authored a book on legendary Carnatic singer M.S. Subbulakshmi, titled Of Gifted Voice: The Life and Art of M.S. Subbulakshmi. In 2018, he had co-edited a book with Samiran Nundy and Sanjay Nagral on corruption in the healthcare sector.

During his time working with the government, he played an important role during the drafting of the Mental Healthcare Bill, 2016. After retiring as an IAS officer, Desiraju had continued to work on public health matters in India. He was on the governing board of the Population Foundation of India. He has also been credited with several awareness initiatives undertaken by the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Science.

Desiraju was the grandson of the first president of independent India, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan. He passed away on his grandfather’s birth anniversary.

Several former colleagues and friends expressed their grief and shared memories of Desiraju on social media. “Keshav Desiraju, grandson of Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, was loved and appreciated for his honesty and decency. This set him apart. He was a pillar of strength to many,’’ K. Sujatha Rao, who also served as Union health secretary at a later date, said.

 Congress leader Jairam Ramesh too fondly remembers his “great friend”.

 

 

Dr Prabha Chandra, a psychiatrist at NIMHANS, remembered his contributions to building the institution.

 

 

K. VijayRaghavan, principal scientific advisor to the Government of India, celebrated Desiraju’s ability to have cordial conversations with everyone, even if there was a difference of opinion. 

 

 


 

Amitabh Kant, CEO of NITI Aayog, remembered Desiraju as a remarkable human being.

 

 

 Many who had worked with Desiraju too talked about their experiences.