BJP govt may consider renaming Shimla to Shyamala

New Delhi, Jan 8: Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union (JNUSU) President Aishe Ghosh has filed a complaint over the violence that took place at the varsity campus on Sunday.

"I am filing this complaint for the incident in which a mob conspired and acted with common intention to assault, intimidate and attempt to murder me, and request you to register an FIR and apprehend culprits at the earliest," the complaint read.

She said that on January 5, in the afternoon, she received information from students in the campus that some students affiliated to ABVP along with other unidentified men and women had gathered with weapons like rods, sledgehammers and lathis near Ganga Bus Stop.

"I along with Nikhil Mathew (MA Labour Studies) who was also present there, were surrounded by a group of persons of that mob most of whom were wearing masks. The mob of 20-30 persons dragged me behind a car standing near the 24*7 and surrounded me and despite my pleading did not let me go and attacked me with rods while I had fallen down. I remember that one of the people was of medium height wearing a brownish-red sweatshirt with UCLA written on it. I saw his face as he was facing me and did not have a mask on and can identify him if I see him," Ghosh wrote in her complaint.

"I was attacked by the above-mentioned persons collectively and was hit on the head multiple times with iron rods. I fell to the ground and my head started bleeding, and some of them kicked me and hit me with the rod on my hand and rest of the body including my head, chest and back."

"I am attaching with this complaint a copy of the MLC which details my injuries. Nikhil Mathew tried to save me but was also hit with an iron hammer and other weapons on his head and arms. The intention of the group of men and their acts was definitely to murder me and other persons associated with me," she said.

New Delhi, Jan 13: The Delhi High Court on Monday sought response of the city police, Delhi government, WhatsApp Inc, Google Inc and Apple Inc on a plea of three JNU professors to preserve data, CCTV footage and other evidence relating to the January 5 violence on the varsity campus.

The Delhi Police informed the court that it has asked the JNU administration to preserve and hand over CCTV footage of the violence.

Justice Brijesh Sethi listed the matter for further hearing on Tuesday.

The court was told by Delhi government Standing Counsel (criminal) Rahul Mehra that the police has not yet received any response from the university administration.

The counsel said police has also written to WhatsApp to preserve data of two groups "Unity Against Left" and "Friends of RSS" including messages, pictures and videos and phone numbers of members, related to JNU violence incident.

The petition was filed by JNU professors Ameet Parameswaran, Atul Sood and Shukla Vinayak Sawant seeking necessary directions to the Delhi Police Commissioner and Delhi government.

The petition also sought direction to the Delhi Police to retrieve all CCTV footage of JNU campus.

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.