Aligarh mechanic's son Mohammad Shadab tops at US high school

Jun 23: The U.S. government on Monday restricted charter flights from India, accusing the nation of "unfair and discriminatory practices" by violating a treaty governing aviation between the two countries.

Air India Ltd. has been making flights to repatriate its citizens during the travel disruptions caused by the Covid-19 outbreak, but also has been selling tickets to the public, the Transportation Department alleged.

At the same time, U.S. airlines have been prohibited from flying to India by aviation regulators there, the DOT said in its order. The situation "creates a competitive disadvantage for U.S. carriers," the agency said in a press release.

Air India is advertising a schedule that is more than half of pre-virus operations, the department said. "The charters go beyond true repatriations, and it appears that Air India may be using repatriation charters as a way of circumventing" that nation's flight restrictions, the U.S. agency said.

The order becomes effective in 30 days, the department said.

Indian airlines must apply to the DOT for authorization before conducting charter flights so that it can scrutinize them more closely, it said. The department will reconsider the restrictions once India lifts restrictions on U.S. carriers.

The action against India follows weeks of DOT restrictions against Chinese airlines after the U.S. agency accused that nation of unfairly banning American carriers in the wake of the virus. On June 15, the U.S. announced it would agree to allow four flights a week from China after it allowed the same number by U.S. carriers.

Attempts to reach Air India and the Indian embassy in Washington after business hours were unsuccessful.

Mumbai, Jul 20: The Bombay High Court on Monday asked the NIA and the Maharashtra government to inform it about the health condition of poet Varavara Rao, an accused in the Elgar Parishad-Maoists links case, and if his family could be allowed to see him "from a reasonable distance".

The directions came after Rao's lawyer told the court that the activist was "almost on his deathbed".

Rao, 81, is currently admitted in the Nanavati Hospital here. He tested positive for coronavirus earlier this month and is also suffering from several other ailments.

A division bench of Justices S S Shinde and S P Tavade asked the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the state to inform the court about Rao's health condition and clarify by July 22 whether his family members could be permitted to see him.

Rao's lawyer Sudeep Pasbola told the court that the activist was "almost on his deathbed" and that if he were to die, it should be in the presence of his family.

"His condition is very serious. He hit his head against the hospital bed while he was at the J J hospital and sustained severe injuries. Besides COVID-19, he suffers from several ailments, he is hallucinating and is delirious," Pasbola said.

"His days are numbered and if he is to die, at least let him die in the presence of his family members," the lawyer said while seeking that Rao be granted bail. Pasbola said Rao was in no condition to cause any prejudice to the probe in the case and even the NIA could not dispute this fact.

The bench, however, asked if Rao was in such a critical condition, wouldn't it be counterproductive to move him out of the hospital, and take him to any other place? "Also, if he has COVID-19, then how can he meet his family?" the court asked.

To this, Pasbola said if permitted, Rao's family could take precautions, and see him from a distance. The state's counsel, Deepak Thakare, told the high court that it could arrange for video-conferencing facilities for Rao's family.

Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, who appeared for the NIA, said as far as he knew, "COVID-19 patients could not be permitted to meet anyone". He also said Rao had been admitted to "one of the best multi-speciality hospitals in the city," and that he was being taken care of in accordance with guidelines of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR).

"We are providing the best treatment to him, all his medical needs are being attended to and we are following ICMR guidelines in treating him for COVID-19," Singh said. The court, while seeking details from the NIA and the state, said, "Can his family members see him from a reasonable distance in the hospital?"

Rao earlier filed two pleas in HC through his lawyer. One was to direct the state to produce all his medical reports from the state-run J J Hospital, where he was admitted in May but discharged hurriedly on June 2 and sent back to Taloja jail in neighbouring Navi Mumbai.

The other plea sought bail on health grounds.

The same bench also heard a petition filed by Rao's co-accused in the case, activists Vernon Gonsalves and Anand Teltumbde, seeking that they be tested for COVID-19 as they had been in close contact with Rao in the jail.

The court directed the prison authorities and the NIA to respond to the plea by July 23. "The prayer in the petition is limited. You (authorities) carry out the test for COVID-19 and see. If they are negative then good," the court said.

It noted that they (Gonsalves and Teltumbde) are lodged in the Taloja jail where there have been cases of inmates testing positive for coronavirus. Besides, the hearing on the plea of activist Sudha Bharadwaj, also an accused in the case, seeking bail on health grounds was adjourned after the court found the Byculla women prison superintendent's report on her health to be "illegible".

Her plea will also be heard on July 23.

Bharadwaj has been in jail since September 2018. She applied for bail on health grounds after an inmate at the Byculla prison tested positive for coronavirus last month.

Rao and nine other activists were arrested in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case, which was initially probed by the Pune Police and later transferred to the NIA.

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.