Black money: Govt collects Rs 3,770 cr from 638 people

New Delhi, Jan 4: The Supreme Court on Thursday extended till June 12 its earlier order of May 15 asking the government not to take any coercive action against companies and employers for violation of Centre's March 29 circular for payment of full wages to employees for the lockdown period.

A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, S K Kaul and M R Shah reserved the verdict on a batch of petitions filed by various companies challenging the circular of the Ministry of Home Affairs issued on March 29 asking the employers to pay full wages to the employees during the nationwide lockdown due to the coronavirus pandemic.

In the proceedings conducted through video conferencing, the top court said there was a concern that workmen should not be left without pay, but there may be a situation where the industry may not have money to pay and hence, the balancing has to be done.

Meanwhile, the apex court asked the parties to file their written submissions in support of their claims.

The top court on May 15 had asked the government not to take any coercive action against the companies and employers who are unable to pay full wages to their employees during the nationwide lockdown due to the coronavirus pandemic.

The Centre also filed an affidavit justifying its March 29 direction saying that the employers claiming incapacity in paying salaries must be directed to furnish their audited balance sheets and accounts in the court.

The government has said that the March 29 directive was a "temporary measure to mitigate the financial hardship" of employees and workers, specially contractual and casual, during the lockdown period and the directions have been revoked by the authority with effect from May 18.

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.

Feb 28: Market benchmark Sensex plummeted over 1,100 points, wiping off over Rs 5 lakh crore investor wealth, in opening session on Friday amid a massive selloff in global equities as rising coronavirus cases outside China stoked fears of a pandemic that could dent world growth.

The 30-share index sank 1,100.27 points, or 2.77 per cent, to 38,645.39, while the NSE Nifty cracked 329.50 points, or 2.83 per cent, to 11,303.80.

All Sensex components were trading in the red, led by losses in Tata Steel, Tech Mahindra, Infosys, Mahindra and Mahindra, Bajaj Finance, HCL Tech and Reliance Industries.

In the previous session, the Sensex settled 143.30 points, or 0.36 per cent, lower at 39,745.66, and the Nifty fell 45.20 points or 0.39 per cent to end at 11,633.30.

According to analysts, till last week the market was of the view that coronavirus was going to have minimum impact on global economy as situation in China was being contained. But the increase in the number of new cases is changing the view and investors are worried about an intense slowdown.

Further, incessant selling by foreign investors is also spooking domestic market participants, traders said.

On a net basis, foreign institutional investors sold equities worth Rs 3,127.36 crore on Thursday, data available with stock exchanges showed.

Stock exchanges in Shanghai, Hong Kong, Seoul and Tokyo plunged up to 4 per cent in their morning sessions.

On Wall Street, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 1,190.95 points, its largest one-day point drop in history, bringing its loss for the week to 3,225.77 points, or 11.1 per cent.

The S&P 500 has now plunged 12 per cent from the all-time high it set just a week ago.

World oil prices too tumbled by more than 4 per cent overnight as traders fretted about the impact of spreading coronavirus on crude demand, particularly from key consumer China.

Brent crude oil futures fell another 2.47 per cent to USD 50.45 per barrel early in the day.

The rupee depreciated 28 paise to 71.89 against the US dollar in morning session.