Mum­bai wo­man’s 24-week preg­nancy ter­mi­nated af­ter Apex Court nod Re­con­sider Lodha panel re­forms in BCCI, govt tells SC

Hindustan Times ST (Mumbai) - HT Navi Mumbai Live - - FRONT PAGE - HT Cor­re­spon­dent ht­metro@hin­dus­tan­times.com Bhadra Sinha bhadra.sinha@hin­dus­tan­times.com Suchetana Ray and Sunny Sen let­ters@hin­dus­tan­times.com

Don­ald Trump is sworn in as the 45th Pres­i­dent of the United States (POTUS) by Chief Jus­tice John Roberts at the US Capi­tol in Wash­ing­ton on Fri­day.

Doc­tors ter­mi­nated on Fri­day the 24-week preg­nancy of a Mum­bai wo­man af­ter the Supreme Court last week re­laxed a 20-week le­gal ceil­ing on abor­tion in the case.

The court al­lowed the 22-yearold wo­man to ter­mi­nate her preg­nancy af­ter doc­tors said the foe­tus was mal­formed and also posed a risk to the mother’s life.

Av­inash Supe, dean of Mum­bai’s KEM Hos­pi­tal, said doc­tors started in­duc­ing labour on Tues­day af­ter pri­mary tests.

The le­gal bat­tle over root-and-branch re­forms in the In­dian cricket board found a twist when at­tor­ney gen­eral Mukul Ro­hatgi ar­gued in the SC that the pro­posed changes war­ranted a big­ger de­bate and must be re­ferred to a larger bench. His re­marks came on a day the top court was to name a set of ad­min­is­tra­tors for the BCCI, one of the rich­est sports as­so­ci­a­tions in the world. The court will de­cide the names for the pro­posed panel on Jan­uary 24, the next date of hear­ing.

A new bench of jus­tices Di­pak Misra, AM Khan­wilkar and DY Chan­drachud of­fered some respite to dis­qual­i­fied ad­min­is­tra­tors, mod­i­fy­ing a pre­vi­ous or­der that de­barred mem­bers from serv­ing sep­a­rate nine-year terms in the BCCI and its af­fil­i­ate as­so­ci­a­tions. They are now al­lowed to be in cricket ad­min­is­tra­tion for 18 years.

The fresh di­rec­tive came af­ter it was pointed out that the court’s Jan­uary 2 and 3 or­ders con­tra­dicted rec­om­men­da­tions of the Jus­tice RM Lodha com­mit­tee, which was formed to sug­gest ad­min­is­tra­tive re­forms in the BCCI af­ter the 2013 IPL match-fix­ing scan­dal.

A packet of pop­u­lar branded potato chips might soon have a “junk food” la­bel on it as the coun­try’s food reg­u­la­tor wants to make a clear distinc­tion be­tween healthy and un­healthy foods.

The Foods Safety and Stan­dards Au­thor­ity of In­dia’s (FSSAI) move re­flects a grow­ing con­cern over junk food — a grey area in In­dia as the coun­try doesn’t have clear-cut guide­lines on food and bev­er­ages con­sid­ered un­healthy.

“We are try­ing to de­fine junk food based on pro­por­tion of salt, su­gar and fat con­tent… The cal­cu­la­tions are based on the In­dian diet chart and rec­om­mended diet as well as in­ter­na­tional stan­dards,” said Pawan Ku­mar Agar­wal, CEO of the Foods Safety and Stan­dards Au­thor­ity of In­dia (FSSAI).

The reg­u­la­tor is pre­par­ing guide­lines to put caps on fat, salt and su­gar con­tent in pack­aged food. The man­u­fac­tur­ers will have to put the junk food la­bel on pack­ets of any prod­uct that con­tains more than the pre­scribed limit of these in­gre­di­ents.

These sug­ges­tions were made by a panel that the reg­u­la­tor had formed to pre­pare guide­lines for a healthy diet for In­di­ans, in­clud­ing a def­i­ni­tion on junk food.

The term junk food has not been de­fined un­der the Food Safety and Stan­dard Act. The FSSAI will soon no­tify a regulation.

In­dia will be among a hand­ful of coun­tries to la­bel pack­aged food as junk. A fi­nal de­ci­sion is pend­ing.

AP PHOTO

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.