Bid to tarnish my image by linking me, movement with RSS: Anna Hazare

New Delhi, Apr 17: A total of 3,336 Indians tested positive for coronavirus in 53 countries while 25 others died of the infection, government sources said on Thursday.

They said the Indians stranded abroad will have to be patient as the government is not evacuating them as part of a larger policy decision to check the spread of the coronavirus in the country.

"They need to be patient and stay where they are. Our missions have been told to extend all possible help to the stranded Indians," said a source.

According to the sources, evacuation of around 35,000 foreign nationals from 48 countries has been facilitated so far from India.

The sources said the majority of Indians who tested positive for the coronavirus infection are living in the Gulf region. A sizeable number of Indians staying in France and the US have also tested positive.

They said that Indian missions in the Gulf region have been told to extend all possible assistance to the Indians in distress.

Around eight million Indians are living in the Gulf countries and there has been growing anxiety among them over their livelihood in view of the pandemic as it has majorly impacted the oil-driven economy of the region.

Almost all Gulf countries have taken a series of drastic measures including imposing total lockdown, travel restrictions and even closing borders to stem the spread of the coronavirus infection.

The United Arab Emirates has already warned of possible action against countries refusing to allow their citizens to return.

Around 3.3 million Indians are living in the UAE and they constitute roughly 30 per cent of the country's population. Among the Indian states, Kerala is the most represented followed by Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh.

A large number of Indians are working in the construction sector in Qatar which is hosting the FIFA World Cup in 2022.

As a matter of policy, India has decided not to bring back the stranded Indians from abroad till the nationwide lockdown ends.

The issue of Indians in Gulf region figured prominently during Prime Minister Narendra Modi's video conference with heads of Indian missions abroad on March 30.

Welfare of Indians in the Gulf was the major focus area in the discussions Modi had with leaders of countries in the region over the last few weeks, officials said.

Jan 7: India’s monetary authority allowed banks to offer foreign-currency transactions outside of local market hours, a move aimed at boosting trading volumes at home.

Interbank deals, as well as those with customers in and outside India, can be undertaken by banks or their overseas branches and units at all times, the Reserve Bank of India said in a statement late Monday. It stopped short of saying whether the timing of the onshore over-the-counter market has been extended from the current 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

The move is in line with recent recommendations to reverse the trend of the partially convertible rupee being traded more abroad than in India. London has overtaken Mumbai to become the top center for trading the rupee, adding to a sense of urgency among local authorities to deepen the onshore market.

Average daily volumes for rupee in the U.K. soared to $46.8 billion in April, a more than fivefold jump from $8.8 billion in 2016, according to a survey from the Bank for International Settlements published in September. That exceeded the $34.5 billion recorded in India.

Analysts say more trading abroad could amplify volatility in the domestic market and reduce the effectiveness of policy actions.

India’s decision comes as the London Stock Exchange Group Plc has started asking market participants if they want the bourse to function fewer hours, signaling it’s open to an argument driven by changing trading patterns and calls for a better work-life balance.

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.