Family of Savita Halappanavar blames Irish law, medical negligence for her death

Observing that the tragic death of Indian dentist illustrates a gap in Irish law, rights group Amnesty asked Ireland to ensure that its domestic policy on access to abortion is in line with international human rights law. It has written to Irish minister for health James Reilly over the issue expressing its concern. 

"International human rights law is clear about the right of a woman to access a safe and legal abortion where her life is at risk," said Colm O'Gorman, Executive Director of Amnesty International in Ireland. Noting this right has already been established as a Constitutional principle by the Irish Supreme Court, the body expressed concern about lack of clarity on the issue.

Savita Halappanavar, 31 an Indian dentist was admitted to University Hospital Galway in western Ireland last month, died of septicaemia a week after miscarrying 17 weeks into her pregnancy as the hospital authorities citing religious grounds refused abortion. The family of the deceased have accused the hospital staff of negligence.

Despite the repeated requests for termination, the same were rejected because of the presence of a foetal heartbeat. Halappanavar was reportedly told that Ireland being a Catholic country, her request for an abortion would not be entertained.

Father of the deceased, Andalappa Yalagi, blamed the archaic laws and the rigidity of the medical practitioners for his daugther's death. "There are two reasons: one, the ban on abortion (under) Ireland's law, and secondly, the negligence of the doctors. I can say these two factors have taken place," Yalagi said.

Her mother, A. Mahadevi, said the authorities should have been sensitive to the situation and should have considered saving her life above everything else. "It is a very important issue. The authorities there should have considered the fact that we follow the Hindu faith and they should have taken a decision after taking everything into perspective. Now it is time for our foreign ministry to take this matter up with the government of Ireland," Mahadevi said.

At least 2,000 people gathered outside Ireland's parliament for a candle-lit vigil to demand that the government legislate to close a legal loophole that leaves it unclear when the threat to the life of a pregnant woman provides legal justification for an abortion.

After several challenges, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2010 that Ireland Prime Minister Enda Kenny, whose party has been criticised for delays in introducing legislation to define in what circumstances abortion should be allowed, offered condolences to the woman's family, but said he could not comment further until an investigation into the death.

Abortion remains an extremely divisive issue in Ireland, an overwhelmingly Roman Catholic country which has some of the world's most restrictive laws on medical terminations. In the absence of legislation, Irish women are forced to go abroad to terminate their pregnancies, an option not open to seriously ill mothers.

The report of the UN's Review of Ireland's human rights record in October last year contains repeated calls from UN member states to bring Ireland's domestic law in line with international human rights obligations and at the very least regulate access to life-saving abortions.

In 2011 the UN Committee Against Torture urged Ireland to clarify the scope of legal abortion through statutory law.

Intellectual Property battle won after 15 years

After 15 years the Delhi High Court finally decided that the homoeopathic firm SBL Limited infringed the trademark by coming up with its own preparation named as Liv-T. SBL Ltd is now restrained from using the mark LIV as part of its trade mark LIV-T while dealing with the medicinal preparations.

The court while setting aside its single judge bench judgement granted six months to SBL Ltd to “liquidate” existing stock of Liv-T.

According to the court presence of mark ‘LIV’ which is an essential feature of the mark Liv.52 shall be considered for the purposes of comparison with that of LIV-T. During the hearing, SBL Limited had said the word ‘LIV’ is “generic and common to the trade as medicines in question manufactured and marketed by both parties are meant for treatment of liver.

IT Act should not be used to throttle dissent: Facebook arrests in India

IT Act should not be used to throttle dissent: Facebook arrests in India

The two girls--were sent to 14-day judicial custody by a court later granted bail within hours after they furnished personal bonds. The arrests were made after one of the girls posted comments on social networking site opposing the shutdown in Mumbai, while the other supported by liking the comment on facebook.

She allegedly said that one should not observe bandh for Thackeray's funeral. "We should remember Bhagat Singh and Sukhdev," the post said.

Telecom and IT Minister Kapil Sibal said he was "deeply saddened" by the arrest and said the IT Act should not be used to "throttle dissent".

Flowing from this, a law student has filed a PIL in Supreme Court of India, asking for striking out Section 66 A of the act (under which these arrests were made). The Supreme Court has praised the student and said that it will take up the matter on priority.

COURT SUMMONS FOR DEFAMATION

Delhi court summoned to Senior Congress leader Digvijay Singh to face trial under ections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, in a criminal Defamation case  lodged against him by BJP President Nitin Gadkari after recording statements of Gadkari and BJP National Secretary Bhupinder Yadav, also a Rajya Sabha MP. Singh accused Gadkari of having business links with MP Ajay Sancheti who allegedly pocketed a huge sum in the coal block allocation.

Gadkari, in his statement recorded in the court, had denied having any business ties with Sancheti and had said Singh had levied “totally false and defamatory” allegations against him to “give the impression that I have been responsible for allocation of coal mines” to Sancheti.

In his complaint, Gadkari has said the Congress-led UPA government is facing a lot of heat on account of its irregularities as brought out by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) in coal blocks allocation and accused Singh of making baseless allegations against him to divert attention from the issue.

Gadkari’s counsel contended that Singh’s statement had the “clear intention to malign the reputation of the complainant.”

The court had also recorded the statement of an authorised representative of a national English daily in which the alleged defamatory statement of Singh was published.

It might turn out to be an opportunity to measure public discourse and criticism against the defamatory law in India. Defamation is a legal wrong emerging from an act of injuring a person’s reputation and sullying their character without lawful justification or excuse.

Libel and slander, both are creatures of English common law, but they are not treated as distinct from each other in Indian jurisprudence. India offers remedy both under civil and criminal law. The civil law for defamation is not codified as legislation, however it is a criminal offence under section 499, Indian Penal Code. It is up to the accused to substantiate that they are protected by one of the 10 exceptions listed under Section 499, exceptions include stating a true fact against a person for public good; expressing an opinion in good faith about an act of a public servant; or even making imputations on the character of another provided it’s in good faith and for the public good. The Indian Constitution protects freedom of speech as a facet of fundamental rights under Article 19, subject to reasonable restrictions, including decency and defamation.

India to open gates for FDI

 As per the current regulatory regime, retail trading (except under single-brand product retailing — FDI up to 51 per cent, under the Government route). India being a signatory to World Trade Organisation’s General Agreement on Trade in Services, had to open up the retail trade sector to foreign investment.

In 1997, FDI in wholesale, with 100 per cent ownership was allowed under the Government approval route. It was brought under the automatic route in 2006. 51 per cent investment in a single brand retail outlet was also permitted in 2006. FDI in Multi-Brand retailing is prohibited in India.

In 2004, The High Court of Delhi defined ‘retail’ as a sale for final consumption in contrast to a sale for wholesale. Thus, retailing can be said to be the interface between the producer and the individual consumer buying for personal consumption. This excludes direct interface between the manufacturer and institutional buyers such as the government and other bulk customers.

“Single Brand” has not been categorically defined by the government anywhere, however, FDI in ‘Single brand’ retail implies that a retail store with foreign investment can only sell one brand. For example, if Adidas were to obtain permission to retail its flagship brand in India, those retail outlets could only sell products under the Adidas brand and not the Reebok brand, for which separate permission is required. If granted permission, Adidas could sell products under the Reebok brand in separate outlets.

“Multi Brand’ retail implies that a retail store with a foreign investment can sell multiple brands under one roof. In July 2010, DIPP, Ministry of Commerce circulated a discussion paper on allowing FDI in multi-brand retail. This paper, if implemented, would open the doors for global retail giants to enter and establish their footprints on the retail landscape of India. Opening up FDI in multi-brand retail will mean that global retailers including Wal-Mart, Carrefour and Tesco can open stores in India.

Foreign Investment in India is governed by the FDI policy announced by the Government of India and the provision of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) 1999. The Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) in this regard had issued a notification, which contains the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or issue of security by a person resident outside India) Regulations, 2000. This notification has been amended from time to time.

The Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India is the nodal agency for proceeding and reviewing the FDI. This FDI policy is notified through Press Notes by the Secretariat for Industrial Assistance (SIA), Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP). The foreign investors are free to invest in India, except few sectors/activities, where prior approval from the RBI or Foreign Investment Promotion Board (‘FIPB’) would be required.

FDI Policy with Regard to Retailing in India

Press Note 4 of 2006 issued by DIPP and consolidated FDI Policy issued in October 2010 provide the sector specific guidelines for FDI:

FDI up to 100% for cash and carry wholesale trading and export trading allowed under the automatic route
FDI up to 51 % with prior Government approval (i.e. FIPB) for retail trade of ‘Single Brand’ products, subject to Press Note 3 (2006 Series)
FDI is not permitted in Multi Brand Retailing in India.

Entry Options prior to FDI Policy

Although prior to Jan 24, 2006, FDI was not authorised in retailing, most general players had been operating in the country. Some of entrance routes used were:-

Franchise Agreements - Easiest way to enter the Indian market, under this FDI (unless otherwise prohibited) is allowed with the approval of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) under the Foreign Exchange Management Act. Apart from quick food bondage identical to Pizza Hut, players such as Lacoste, Mango, Nike as good as Marks & Spencer, have entered Indian marketplace through this route.
Cash And Carry Wholesale Trading - 100% FDI is allowed in wholesale trading which involves building of a large distribution infrastructure to assist local manufacturers. Metro AG of Germany was the first significant global player to enter India through this route.
Strategic Licensing Agreements - Some foreign brands give exclusive licences and distribution rights to Indian companies. Through these rights, Indian companies can either sell it through their own stores, or enter into shop-in-shop arrangements or distribute the brands to franchisees. Mango, the Spanish apparel brand has entered India through this route with an agreement with Piramyd, Mumbai, SPAR entered into a similar agreement with Radhakrishna Foodlands Pvt. Ltd.
Manufacturing and Wholly Owned Subsidiaries - The foreign brands such as Nike, Reebok, Adidas, etc. that have wholly-owned subsidiaries in manufacturing are treated as Indian companies and are, therefore, allowed to do retail.  

A Start Made

Walmart has a joint venture with Bharti Enterprises for cash-and-carry (wholesale) business, which runs the ‘Best Price’ stores. It plans to have 15 stores by March and enter new states like Andhra Pradesh , Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka.

Duke, Wallmart’s CEO opined that FDI in retail would contain inflation by reducing wastage of farm output as 30% to 40% of the produce does not reach the end-consumer. “In India, there is an opportunity to work all the way up to farmers in the back-end chain. Part of inflation is due to the fact that produces do not reach the end-consumer,” Duke said, adding, that a similar trend was noticed when organized retail became popular in the US.

Many of the foreign brands would come to India if FDI in multi brand retail is permitted which can be a blessing in disguise for the economy.

News - World

Indian couple charged with 'gross repeated maltreatment'

Indian couple residing in Norway, have been accused of gross repeated maltreatment of their child/ children by threats, violence or other wrong under section 219 of the Penal Code. The prosecution has proposed a sentence of one year three months for the mother and one year six months for the father. The judgement in the case would be pronounced on Monday, December 3^rd.

The couple a software professional from Andhra Pradesh, and his wife have been remanded in custody. Their seven-year-old son was found wetting his pants in the school bus and in class room on different occasions; the same was reported to the father, who in turn threatened his son of sending him back to India, if he continued to wet his pants.

The Ministry of External Affairs, Delhi has been following the case for last eight months. Due to the efforts made earlier, the child, who was taken away by the local authorities because of the same reasons, was sent back to the family in May.

After a request from the couple’s lawyer, the Indian Mission in Oslo sought consular access and a Consular Officer met Chandrasekhar to ascertain his welfare and asked for any information that he may like to convey.

The officer also explained the situation to Chandrasekhar and assured that the Indian mission will continue to keep in touch with the lawyer and stands ready to assist.

The incident comes barely months after another row involving an Indian couple and their children. Children aged 3years and 4 years were taken away from their parents -- by Norway's Child Welfare Society in May last year on grounds of "emotional disconnect".