Alok Verma ouster: Kharge dissents, questions CVC findings

Agencies
January 11, 2019

New Delhi, Jan 11: Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge submitted a dissent note before the High Powered Committee, which decided the ouster of Alok Verma as the CBI Director, questioning the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) findings against Verma.

Kharge, the lone dissenting voice in the high-powered selection committee in his note argued, why Verma should be restored with "full extent and authority of powers" under his office.

Verma was removed as the CBI Director on account of the extremely serious nature of observations made by the CVC against him. The CVC was of the view that being the head of a very sensitive organisation, Verma was not functioning with the integrity expected of him.

"CVC (Central Vigilance Commission) report submitted to the Supreme Court doesn't arrive at any conclusive finding with respect to allegations against him," Kharge's note accessed by ANI stated.

Kharge also demanded that Verma be allowed to continue as CBI Director for an additional period of 77 days to make up for the days lost when he was sent on leave.

"Having examined the contents of the CVC report, it is my considered opinion that Alok Verma be allowed to explain himself before this Committee, along with the charges made against him, prior to any decision being taken," the note further read.

A high-powered committee comprising Justice Sikri, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Kharge met for over two hours on Thursday to decide the fate of Verma, who was reinstated by the Supreme Court earlier this week after he was sent on forced leave by the government.

Echoing similar sentiments, another senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal took to Twitter on Friday and wrote, "Alok Verma's removal. The Committee ensured the caged parrot did not fly away fearing the parrot might spill the beans by parroting the goings on in the corridors of power. The caged parrot will remain caged."

According to sources, the CVC found evidence of influencing of investigation in the Moin Qureshi case. There was also evidence of Verma taking bribe of Rs. 2 crore, the sources claimed.

The CVC was of the view that Verma's conduct in the case was "suspicious," and there was a "prima facie case" against him. The CVC also felt that the "entire truth will come out if a criminal investigation is ordered."

In the IRCTC case, the CVC felt that it can be reasonably concluded that Verma allegedly "deliberately excluded" a name from the FIR, for reasons "best known to him," the sources said.

The CVC found evidence against Verma in several other cases as well, the sources said, including instances of wilful non-production and fabrication of record. The Committee also took note of Verma's alleged attempts to induct officers of doubtful integrity in the CBI.

In response to the "insinuation" that he was not given a chance to be heard, the sources said that Verma was given an opportunity to present his case before the CVC in the presence of Retd. Justice Patnaik.

The Supreme Court also provided a copy of the CVC report to Verma's advocate, the sources claimed.

The Committee felt that as a detailed investigation, including criminal investigation, was necessary in some cases, Verma's continuation as CBI Director was not desirable, and he should be transferred, the sources mentioned.

Verma, a 1979-batch IPS officer, was posted as DG, Fire Services, Civil Defence, and Home Guards, two days after he was reinstated as the CBI Director by the Supreme Court. His reinstatement had come about two-and-a-half months after being divested of his powers and sent on leave by the government.

In his place, 1986-batch IPS officer M. Nageshwar Rao, who is Additional Director of CBI, will look after the duties of the Director, till the appointment of a new Director or until further orders, whichever is earlier, according to an order issued by the Department of Personnel and Training.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 25,2020

New Delhi, Apr 25: Neighbourhood and standalone shops, including those selling garments, mobile phones, hardware and stationery items have been allowed to open but those located in market places, malls and COVID-19 hotspots and containment zones, will continue to remain shut till May 3.

In rural areas, all shops, except those in single and multi-brand shopping malls, are allowed to open.

However, a Home Ministry official said the final decision of whether to allow the additional shops to open or not will be taken by the state governments and Union Territory administrations depending on their respective COVID-19 situation.
 
While allowing opening of more shops, a move seen as a relief to people who have been under lockdown since March 24, the government order issued on Friday night said the shops will be functioning with 50 per cent of workforce and after adhering strictly to precautions which include social distancing and wearing of masks.

The Union Home Ministry also said malls, liquor and cigarette shops, sale of non-essential items through e-commerce platforms continue to remain shut.

Restaurants, hair salons and barber shops will not be allowed to open as these render services and do not fall under the shop category.

Amending its April 15 order, Union Home Secretary Ajay Bhalla said in the Friday night order that "all shops, including neighbourhood shops and standalone shops, shops in residential complexes, within the limits of municipal corporations and municipalities, registered under the the Shops and Establishment Act of the respective State and UT" will be allowed to open during the lockdown.

The ministry also said shops located in registered markets located outside the municipal corporations and municipalities can open after following the drill of social distancing and wearing of masks but with 50 per cent of strength.

However, single and multi-brands shall continue to remain closed in these areas also.

"All shops registered under the the Shops and Establishment Act of the respective State/UT, including shops in residential complexes and market complexes, except shops in multi-brand and single brand malls, outside the limits of municipal corporations and municipalities, with 50 per cent strength of workers with wearing of masks and social distancing being mandatory" will be allowed to function, the order said.

In a statement on Saturday, the Home Ministry said the order implies that in rural areas, all shops, except those in shopping malls are allowed to open.

In urban areas, all standalone shops, neighbourhood shops and shops in residential complexes are allowed to open.

Shops in markets and market complexes and shopping malls are not allowed to open.

"It is clarified that sale by e-commerce companies will continue to be permitted for essential goods only," the order said and also added that sale of liquor and other items continues to be prohibited as specified in the national directives for COVID-19 management.

The ministry said that liquor shops were given licence under the Excise Act of the states and the establishments thrown open from Saturday were covered under the Shops and Establishment Act of the states.

Sale of cigarettes, gutka are continue to be prohibited during the lockdown.

"As specified in the consolidated revised guidelines, these shops will not be permitted to open in areas, whether rural or urban, which are declared as containment zones by respective States and Union Territories," the statement said.

The lockdown was first announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on March 24 in a bid to combat the coronavirus pandemic. It was further extended till May 3.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 1,2020

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.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 11,2020

Apr 11: India has sent back 20,473 foreigners who wanted to return to their countries following the Covid-19 global pandemic, it was revealed on Friday (April 10).

"So far, we have successfully evacuated 20,473 foreign nationals as of yesterday. This is an ongoing process," said Dammu Ravi, Coordinator on Covid-19 issues at the Ministry of External Affairs, MEA.

"This involves several countries," Ravi said during the daily government briefing on Covid-19, although he could not list the countries offhand. "We are receiving excellent cooperation from governments all over the world for this process."

Many foreigners, especially tourists, were stranded in India when domestic and international flights were abruptly cancelled last month in a bid to curb transmission of the coronavirus.

The Ministry of Tourism has asked stranded foreigners to get in touch with the government through a special portal started for the purpose, through their embassies in India and other sources to facilitate their evacuation if they wished to head home.

As of Friday evening, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had confirmed 6,761 Covid-19 cases in India, of whom 515 patients have been cured.

There were 206 deaths reported from across the country.

Two states, Punjab and Orissa, have extended the ongoing lockdown until April 30.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi will consult state chief ministers on Saturday to decide whether to extend the country-wide lockdown, which is due to end at midnight on April 14.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.