14 US lawmakers urge Modi to lift clampdown in J&K

Washington D.C, Jul 8:  US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo on Tuesday (local time) announced visa restrictions on some Chinese officials under the Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act, 2018.

"Today I am announcing visa restrictions on PRC government and Chinese Communist Party officials determined to be "substantially involved in the formulation or execution of policies related to access for foreigners to Tibetan areas," pursuant to the Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act of 2018," Pompeo said.

"Access to Tibetan areas is increasingly vital to regional stability, given the PRC's human rights abuses there, as well as Beijing's failure to prevent environmental degradation near the headwaters of Asia's major rivers," he said.

The US Secretary of State pointed out that Beijing has continued "systematically to obstruct travel to the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) and other Tibetan areas" by U.S. diplomats and other officials, journalists, and tourists, while PRC officials and other citizens enjoy far greater access to the United States.

"The United States will continue to work to advance the sustainable economic development, environmental conservation, and humanitarian conditions of Tibetan communities within the People's Republic of China and abroad," he said.

Pompeo said US also remains "committed to supporting meaningful autonomy for Tibetans, respect for their fundamental and unalienable human rights, and the preservation of their unique religious, cultural, and linguistic identity".

"In the spirit of true reciprocity, we will work closely with the U.S. Congress to ensure U.S. citizens have full access to all areas of the People's Republic of China, including the TAR and other Tibetan areas," he said.

Lucknow, Feb 14: Uttar Pradesh doctor Kafeel Khan was on Friday booked under the National Security Act (NSA) over his alleged anti-CAA speech at Aligarh Muslim University on December 12, 2019.

The Uttar Pradesh slapped NSA on Kafeel Khan on Friday even as the doctor waited to be released from jail despite being granted bail on Monday in connection with his alleged inflammatory speech.

SP Crime Dr Arvind said that there were sufficient grounds to book the doctor under NSA.

The suspended pediatrician, Kafeel Khan, was arrested for allegedly delivering a controversial speech during Anti-CAA protests on December 12 at the Aligarh Muslim University or AMU. While he was granted bail on Monday, his family members claimed on Thursday that he was yet to be released.

Dr Kafeel Khan's brother Adeel Ahmed Khan had issued a statement saying that despite being granted bail Mathura jail authorities had not honoured the court's order.

Dr Kafeel Khan was arrested by the UP Special Task Force from Mumbai on January 29 for participating anti-CAA protest at AMU. A case was registered against him at the Civil Lines police station here for promoting enmity between different religions.

After his arrest in Mumbai, Dr Khan was brought to Aligarh, from where he was shifted to the district jail in neighbouring Mathura.

According to police, this was done as a precautionary measure in view of the anti-CAA protests on the AMU campus and at the Eidgah grounds in the old city. Police had said that the Dr Khan's presence in the Aligarh jail could have aggravated the law and order situation in the city.

The doctor was earlier arrested for his alleged role in the death of over 60 children in one week at the BRD Medical College in Gorakhpur in August 2017. Short supply of oxygen at the children's ward was blamed at that time for the deaths.

About two years later, a state government probe cleared Khan of all major charges, prompting him to seek an apology from the Yogi Adityanath government.

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.