Amit Shah dares Kejriwal to visit Shaheen Bagh, asserts Modi govt will not spare anti-nationals

New Delhi, April 6: On the 40th foundation day of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) today, Prime Minister Narendra Modi appealed to party workers to reaffirm the importance of social distancing, help those in need amid lockdown and enable India to overcome COVID-19.

"Greetings to all fellow BJP Karyakartas on the Sthapana Diwas of the party. Tributes to all those who have toiled hard to build the party for decades, due to which BJP has got the opportunity to serve crores of Indians across our nation's length and breadth. #BJPat40," Prime Minister Modi tweeted.

"Whenever BJP has got the opportunity to serve, the party has focused on good governance and empowering the poor. In line with the party's ethos, our Karyakartas have worked hard to bring a positive difference in the lives of many and done great social service.

We mark our party's 40th anniversary when India is battling COVID-19. I appeal to BJP Karyakartas to follow the set of guidelines from our party president JP Nadda Ji, help those in need and reaffirm the importance of social distancing. Let's make India COVID-19 free," he added.

Earlier, in a message, party President JP Nadda had asked BJP workers to hoist new party flag at all offices and at every karyakarta's house. "Maintain social distancing while hoisting," the BJP President stated.

"All BJP Karyakartas to give up one meal on our Foundation Day as a way to show solidarity with people facing hardships during the lockdown.

Provide food packets to 5+1 needy under #FeedtheNeedy program. In the next one week, put a system in place where we can provide two homemade face covers to each person at our booth. We should circulate videos of preparation and distribution of such face covers with #WearFaceCoverStaySafe," Nadda stated.

He also asked BJP Kartyakartas to encourage 40 others to donate Rs 100 each to PM-CARES Fund.

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.

New Delhi, May 21: The Airports Authority of India (AAI) issued a standard operating procedure (SOP) to airport operators on Wednesday for recommencement of domestic flights from May 25 onwards, saying Aarogya Setu app is not mandatory for children below 14 years of age.

"Passengers shall compulsorily walk through screening zone for thermal screening at a designated place in the city side before entering the terminal building," the AAI said in its SOP, which has been accessed by news agency.

Airport operators must make appropriate arrangements for sanitisation of a passenger's baggage before his or her entry into the terminal building, said the SOP dated May 20.

The AAI manages more than 100 airports across the country. However, major airports like Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru and Hyderabad are managed by private companies. 

Civil Aviation Minister had announced on Wednesday that domestic flight services would resume from May 25 onwards in a calibrated manner.