Black money: SIT asks agencies to share data on ongoing case

New Delhi, Jun 26: "Iam Indira Gandhi's granddaughter, not an undeclared BJP spokesperson like some of the opposition leaders," Congress general secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra on Friday said, as she alleged that the Uttar Pradesh government is threatening her through various departments for speaking the truth. Priyanka Gandhi's dare to the Uttar Pradesh government came days after the Agra administration asked her to withdraw within 24 hours the claim of high coronavirus deaths in the district.

The Congress general secretary in-charge UP East has accused the Yogi Adityanath government of indulging in propaganda instead of dealing with the pandemic. "As a public servant, my duty is towards the people of Uttar Pradesh. And this duty is to put out the truth before them and not to put forth government propaganda. The UP government is wasting its time by threatening me through its various departments," Priyanka Gandhi said in a tweet in Hindi.

"They can take whatever action they want, I will keep putting forth the truth. I am Indira Gandhi's granddaughter not an undeclared BJP spokesperson like some of the opposition leaders," she said. This week, Priyanka Gandhi repeatedly attacked the Uttar Pradesh government over the "high" COVID-19 mortality rate in Agra and on other issues related to the state government's handling of the pandemic.

New Delhi, Jun 17: Police Surender Jeet Kaur, Assistant Commissioner of Delhi Police Surender Jeet Kaur, has held herself responsible for the death of her husband Charan Jeet Singh, who succumbed to Covid at a hospital in Delhi.

“My husband didn’t step out of the house when the lockdown started, but I went out daily because of my job… I will never be able to forgive myself,” Kaur on Tuesday, a day after losing her husband.

54-year-old Singh, a resident of Lajpat Nagar and a businessman, is survived by his wife and their 26-year-old son who lives in Canada.

Kaur, 57, ACP (Crimes Against Women) in the South-East district of the Delhi Police, is also ACP (Covid Cell) of the district. On May 20, five days after Kaur tested positive for the virus, her husband Singh tested positive, followed by the ACP’s 80-year-old father on May 24.

All of them had symptoms and while Kaur and Singh were admitted to Indraprastha Apollo hospital, her father was admitted to Max hospital in Saket. On May 26, Kaur returned home after recovering from the virus.

Kaur said, “I last spoke to my husband on May 22 night, when we were both admitted in the hospital in different wards. The doctor called me and said that my husband needs to be put on ventilator support. I had a video call with my husband. He was breathless and told me that his oxygen level was dropping. He showed me the monitor, the doctors in the room, and then said he was having trouble speaking and that he would send me WhatsApp messages.”

A day after he passed away, Kaur recalled the messages that Singh sent her just before being put on ventilator support. “He started sending me details of our finances, accounts… I told him to stop and asked him why he was telling me all this. He said I needed to know… Maybe he feared he wouldn’t come back. I prayed every day, at temples, mosques, churches and gurdwaras for him. I am devastated that he’s gone. We were to move to Canada to live with our son in 2023 after my retirement. We had so many plans.”

Kaur’s brother Maninder Ahluwalia said the hospital tried plasma therapy but Singh didn’t respond to the treatment. “He had diabetes and high BP, but those were always under control. We were hopeful,” he said.

The couple’s son joined on video call from Canada to watch his father’s last journey from the ambulance to the entrance of the crematorium. “My son couldn’t attend his father’s last rites because there are no flights… It’s so unfortunate,” said Kaur.

Friends and family remember Singh as a “jolly, disciplined and brave man”, while Kaur said he was the “perfect partner”. She said, “When I was an SHO-rank officer, I would work for 36 hours straight some days, and he would handle the house and our son who was growing up. I would miss family functions and important occasions but he would always go and make up for my absence. I was able to do this job for decades because of his support.”

On Tuesday afternoon, Singh was cremated in the presence of close family and members of the police fraternity. “The DCP and the Joint CP called me daily to enquire about my husband, other police officers too. I am grateful for their support. They didn’t let me feel alone for a single day,” said Kaur.

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.