Amidst protests, UP govt starts implementing contentious CAA

Agencies
January 6, 2020

Lucknow, Jan 6: Undeterred by the large scale protests that claimed as many as 20 lives in the state, Uttar Pradesh government has started the process of implementing the controversial Citizenship (Amendment) Act.

According to sources in the government, the district magistrates have been directed to identify the migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, who have been living in their districts.

Sources said that the state home department has given oral instructions to the district magistrates. ''No written orders have been issued,'' said a senior official here preferring anonymity.

The official said that the district magistrates would be preparing a list containing names of those minorities, who had migrated from these countries following their persecution and had been living without obtaining the citizenship of India.

According to sources, the government expected that the migrants, who could be eligible for the Indian citizenship in accordance with the CAA, could be more in number in the districts, including Rampur, Ghaziabad, Shahjahanpur, Lucknow and some others.

''The list will be sent to the union home ministry,'' the official added.

Sources said that the state government will also inform the centre about the ''illegal Muslim migrants'' for their ultimate deportation to their countries of origin.

Different parts of UP had witnessed large scale violence last month during the protests against the CAA. At least 20 people, mostly youngsters, were killed allegedly in police firing and many others were injured. The state government had denied the charge. 

Alleged police excesses during and after the protests triggered a nationwide outrage with several rights organisations and activists slamming the BJP government and demanding a high-level probe into the allegations.

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
January 6,2020

Jan 6: India’s Finance Ministry has delivered a challenge to its revenue collectors: meet tax targets despite $20 billion of corporate tax cuts.

Through a video conference on Dec. 16, officials were exhorted to meet the direct tax mop-up target of 13.4 trillion rupees ($187 billion), a government official told reporters. Collection in the eight months to November grew at 5% from a year earlier, against the desired 17%.

The missive shows Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s urgent need to buoy public finances in a slowing economy where April-November tax collections were half the amount budgeted. Authorities withheld some payments to states and have capped ministries’ expenditure as the fiscal deficit ballooned beyond the target.

The government’s efforts to maintain its deficit goal goes against advice from some quarters, including central bank Governor Shaktikanta Das, who urged more spending to spur economic growth.

It’s uncertain though how much room Modi’s administration has to boost expenditure, given that it may already be borrowing as much as 540 billion rupees through state-run companies, a figure that isn’t reflected on the federal balance sheet. Uncertainty about public finances pushed up sovereign yields in November and December, compelling Das to announce unconventional policies to keep costs in check.

“This is not a time to conceal the fiscal deficit by off-budget borrowing or deferring payments,” said Indira Rajaraman, an economist and a former member of the Reserve Bank of India’s board. “If they were to stick to the target, that would be catastrophic because there is so much pump-priming that is needed right now.”

GDP grew 4.5% in the quarter ended September, the slowest pace in more than six years as both consumption and investments cooled in Asia’s third-largest economy. Only government spending supported the expansion, piling pressure on Modi to keep stimulating.

S&P Global Ratings warned in December it may downgrade India’s sovereign ratings if economic growth doesn’t recover. Government support seems to be waning now, with ministries asked to cap spending in the final quarter of the financial year at 25% of the amount budgeted rather than 33% allowed earlier. This new rule will hamstring sectors including agriculture, aviation and coal, where not even half of annual targets have been disbursed.

As the federal government runs short of money, it’s been delaying payouts to state administrations.

Private hospitals have threatened to suspend cash-less services to government employees over non-payment of dues, while a builder informed the stock exchange about delayed rental payments from no less than the tax office itself.

India is considering a litigation-settlement plan that will allow companies to exit lingering tax disputes by paying a portion of the money demanded by the government, the Economic Times newspaper reported Saturday.

The move will help improve the ease of doing business besides unlocking a part of the almost 8 trillion rupees ($111 billion) caught up in these disputes. The step, which is being considered as part of the annual budget, could also bridge India’s fiscal gap.

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman has refused to comment on the deficit goal before the official budget presentation due Feb. 1.

A deviation from target, if any, “will need to be balanced with a credible consolidation plan further-out,” said Radhika Rao, an economist at DBS Group Holdings Ltd. in Singapore.

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
January 24,2020

Jan 24: India’s economy appears to be shaking off a slump, as activity in the services and manufacturing sectors expanded for a second straight month in December.

The needle on a gauge measuring so-called animal spirits signaled the economy may be taking a turn for the better, as five of the eight high-frequency indicators tracked by Bloomberg News came in stronger last month. The dial was last at the current position in August.

“Animal spirits” is a term coined by British economist John Maynard Keynes to refer to investors’ confidence in taking action, and the gauge uses the three-month weighted average to smooth out volatility in the single-month numbers.

The nascent recovery would need a helping hand, with expectations building that Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman will provide some stimulus when she presents the budget Feb. 1. Official forecasts show the economy is set to expand at 5% in the year ending March 2020 -- the weakest pace in more than a decade.

Here are the details of the dashboard:

Business Activity

The dominant services index rose to the highest level in five months in December as improving new work orders helped boost activity. The seasonally adjusted Markit India Services PMI index climbed to 53.3 from 52.7 in November, helping post a strong end to the calendar year.

India’s manufacturing PMI also rose -- to 52.7 from 51.2 a month ago -- boosted by the fastest increase in new orders since July. A reading above 50 means expansion while anything below that signals contraction.

The uptick in business confidence was accompanied by a rise in inflationary pressures, the survey showed. That trend may keep monetary policy makers from resuming interest-rate cuts anytime soon, leaving most of the heavy-lifting to boost growth with the government.

“The relative stability in macro indicators over the past two months suggests that the worst is behind, but the recovery is likely to be prolonged,” said Teresa John, an economist at Nirmal Bang Equities Pvt. in Mumbai. “Still, sluggish growth and rising inflation indicate that India may well remain in stagflation for most of 2020.”

Exports

Exports remained a laggard, falling 1.8% in December from a year ago. The drag was mainly because of a fall in export of engineering goods, which constitute a third of India’s non-oil exports.

Capital goods imports continued to contract and was lower by 16.5% year-on-year in December after a 22% drop in November. This was the seventh consecutive month of continuous decline, underscoring the weakness in the capex cycle, according to IDFC First Bank.

Consumer Activity

Weakness in demand for passenger vehicles persisted, with local sales falling 1.2% in December from a year ago, according to the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers. That capped the worst yearly passenger vehicle sales on record. A Nielsen study on demand for fast-moving consumer goods showed volume growth dropped to 3.5% in the last quarter of 2019 from 3.9% in the same period of 2018.

Funding conditions held out hope, showing considerable improvement in December, according to the Citi India Financial Conditions Index. Credit growth remained tardy though, with demand for loans rising at a slower 7.1% pace from a year ago compared with a nearly 8% growth in November.

Industrial Activity

Industrial output rose for the first time in four months in November. The pick up was broad-based, led by mining, manufacturing and electricity. Mining and manufacturing, in particular, posted a second month of sequential growth. Production of consumer goods also rose after a few months of contraction.

The index of eight core infrastructure industries, which feeds into the index of industrial production, however, declined 1.5% in November from a year ago -- the fourth straight month of contraction. That was on account of shrinking production of electricity, steel, coal, natural gas and crude oil. Both the core sector and industrial output numbers are reported with a one-month lag.

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.