‘Chowkidar chor hai’ remark: Rahul Gandhi tenders unconditional apology to Supreme Court

New Delhi, Jan 16: United Forum of Bank Unions has decided to observe a two-day strike on January 31 and February 1, demanding early wage revision settlement which has been due since November 1, 2017, said the All India Bank Employees Association.

Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman will present her second Union Budget on February 1.

Banks will also hold a strike on March 11, 12 and 13. Also, an indefinite strike will be held from April 1.

General Secretary, All India Bank Officers' Confederation West Bengal Sanjay Das has stated that the nationwide strike has been called over several demands.

"The demands include--wage revision settlement at 20 per cent hike on payslip components with adequate loading thereof and scrapping off New Pension Scheme (NPS)," said Das.

There are several demands to hold the strike including the merger of special allowance with basic pay, updation of pension, improvement in the family pension system, five-day banking, allocation of staff welfare fund based on operating profits and exemption from income tax on retiral benefits without a ceiling.

"Other demands include-- a uniform definition of business hours, lunch hour etc in the branches, introduction of leave bank, defined working hours for the officers and equal wage for equal work for the contract employee," said Das.

New Delhi, May 17: Following the COVID-19-induced economic disruptions, up to 135 million jobs could be lost and 120 million people might be pushed back into poverty in India, all of which will have a hit on consumer income, spending and savings, says a report.

According to a new report by international management consulting firm Arthur D Little, the worst of COVID-19's impact will be felt by India's most vulnerable in terms of job loss, poverty increase and reduced per-capita income, which in turn will result in a steep decline in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

"Given the continued rise of COVID-19 cases, we believe that a W-shaped recovery is the most likely scenario for India. This implies a GDP contraction of 10.8 per cent in FY 2020-21 and GDP growth of 0.8 per cent in FY 2021-22," the report said.

India's COVID-19 tally has crossed 90,000 and the nationwide death toll has touched nearly 2,800 so far.

The report titled "India: Surmounting the economic challenges posed by COVID-19: A 10-point programme to revive and power India's post-COVID economy" said the 'collateral damage' of the forecasted GDP slowdown, will be felt most acutely in employment, poverty alleviation, per-capita income and overall nominal GDP.

"Unemployment may rise to 35 per cent from 7.6 per cent resulting in 136 million jobs lost and a total of 174 million unemployed. Poverty alleviation will receive a set-back, significantly changing the fortunes of many, putting 120 million people into poverty and 40 million into abject poverty," the report said.

"India is headed towards a W-shaped economic recovery with a potential GDP contraction of 10.8 per cent in FY21. An opportunity loss of USD 1 trillion is staring India in its face," said Barnik Chitran Maitra, lead author of the report and Managing Partner & CEO of Arthur D Little, India and South Asia.

Maitra further said "for its USD 5 trillion vision, a radical economic approach is needed, centred on an immediate stimulus and structural reforms. The Prime Minister's visionary 'Atma Nirbhar Bharat Abhiyan' is a good start to this new approach."

The report lauded the steps taken by the government and the Reserve Bank of India, but said a far more assertive approach may be required given the magnitude of the adverse economic output.

The report suggested a 10-point programme to accelerate the recovery which include strengthening the 'safety net' significantly for the most vulnerable, enable survival of small and medium businesses, restarting the rural economy and providing targeted assistance to at-risk sectors.

It further said the government should launch "Make in India 2.0" to capture global opportunities, build 'Modern India', accelerate Digital India and Innovation, strengthen global investment corridors with the US, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Japan and the UK, debottleneck land and labour and transform banking and financial markets in a bid to secure a sustainable economic future for 1.3 billion Indians. 

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.