Saffron vs Saffron: 200 RSS workers attack BJP office in Indore

Lucknow, Jul 15: As many as 122 alleged criminals were killed in over 6,000 encounters in Uttar Pradesh in the past three years, while 13 policemen also lost their lives during this period, a senior police official said.

He also said over 2,000 criminals were injured in police action, while over 13,000 of them have been arrested.

"Thirteen policemen have been killed in action in as many as 6,126 encounters (in UP), while as many as 122 criminals have been gunned down," Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) Prashant Kumar said while sharing details of police encounters from March 20, 2017, to July 10, 2020.

As many as 13,361 criminals have been arrested, while 2,296 criminals were injured in police encounters, he said, adding 909 policemen were also injured in these incidents.

Referring to the Kanpur ambush in which eight policemen were killed, Kumar said, "Of the 21 named accused in the incident, six have been killed and four arrested so far. A hunt is on to nab the 11 other accused."

Eight police personnel, including a DSP, were gunned down by the henchmen of gangster Vikas Dubey in Bikru village of Kanpur on July 3.

Seven others, including a civilian, were injured in the attack after the police team entered the village past July 2 midnight to arrest the gangster.

Dubey was later killed in an encounter on July 10 after police claimed that he tried to escape from the spot in the Bhauti area where the vehicle carrying him from Ujjain to Kanpur met with an accident.

Kumar said overall there has been a decline in the crime rate in the state this year compared to the last year.

"A total of 579 instances of loot took place in the state from January 1, 2020, to June 15, 2020. This is 44.17 per cent less compared to the crimes committed in the same period in 2019, the ADG (Law and Order) said.

He said 33 incidents of dacoity have been reported in the state this year so far. It is 37.74 per cent less compared to the crimes committed in the same period in 2019 .

Similarly, 2,604 instances of burglary have taken this year so far and is 30.97 per cent less compared to the crimes committed in the same period last year, Kumar added.

He said 1,019 dowry-related deaths have taken place this year, registering a 6.34 per cent decline compared to the previous year.

As many as 913 incidents of rape have been reported this year so far, a decline of 25.41 per cent compared to the last year, Kumar said.

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.