2-yr-old TN boy trapped in abandoned borewell for 3 days found dead

New Delhi, May 31: The fourth phase of the coronavirus-triggered lockdown, which began on May 18, saw 85,974 COVID-19 cases till 8 am on Sunday, which is nearly half of the total cases reported in the country so far.

Lockdown 4.0, which will end on May 31 midnight, has accounted for 47.20 per cent of the total coronavirus infection cases, number crunching from the Union Health Ministry data reveals.

The lockdown, which was first clamped on March 25 and spanned for 21 days, had registered 10,877 cases, while the second phase of the curbs that began on April 15 and stretched for 19 days till May 3, saw 31,094 cases.

The third phase of the lockdown that was in effect for 14 days ending on May 17, recorded 53,636 cases till 8 am of May 18.

The country had registered 512 coronavirus infection cases till March 24.

India is the ninth worst-hit nation by the COVID-19 pandemic as of now.        

The first case of COVID-19 in India was reported on January 30 from Kerala after a medical student of Wuhan university, who had returned to India, tested  positive for the virus.

India registered its highest single-day spike of COVID-19 cases on Sunday, with 8,380 new infections reported in the last 24 hours, taking the country's tally to 1,82,143, while the death toll rose to 5,164, according to the Union Health Ministry.

The number of active COVID-19 cases stood to 89,995, while 86,983 people have recovered and one patient has migrated, it said.

"Thus, around 47.75 per cent patients have recovered so far," a senior Health Ministry official said.

With the fourth phase of lockdown ending on Sunday, the Home Ministry on Saturday said 'Unlock-1' will be initiated in the country from June 8 under which the nationwide lockdown will be relaxed to a great extent, including opening of shopping malls, restaurants and religious places, even as strict restrictions will remain in place till June 30 in the country's worst-hit areas.

While announcing the extension of the lockdown in containment zones across the country, the Home Ministry said temples, mosques, churches and other religious places and shopping malls will be allowed to open in a phased manner from June 8, while a decision on opening of schools and colleges will be taken in July in consultation with states.

New Delhi, May 28: The Crime Branch of the Delhi Police will file 12 chargesheets against 536 Tablighi Jamaat members from three countries, officials said on Thursday.

Till now, the police has already filed chargesheets against 374 foreigners from 32 countries.

The officials said the charges against the Tablighi Jamaat members pertain to violation of visa rules, government guidelines regarding the Epidemic Disease Act and acting negligently in a way that was likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life.

The Tablighi Jamaat, a religious organisation in Nizamuddin in South Delhi, had allegedly organised a congregation in March in violation of mass gatherings.

The Tablighi Jamaat’s Nizamuddin Markaz (centre) had become a coroavirus hotspot in the national capital.

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.