Row at Allahabad univ escalates, Oppn targets Irani

New Delhi, Jun 8: Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has announced that malls, restaurants and religious places in the national capital would open from Monday after more than two months since the coronavirus-induced lockdown was imposed, but banquet halls and hotels would remain closed.

At an online briefing on Sunday, Kejriwal said hotels and banquet halls might be converted into hospitals in the coming days to treat coronavirus patients and therefore, they would remain shut.

"Malls, restaurants and religious places will be opening from Monday in Delhi in accordance with the Centre's guidelines," he said.

The city government will comply with the instructions of the Centre and its experts like maintaining social distancing and wearing of masks at these places, Kejriwal said.

"In view of the rising number of coronavirus cases, we might attach hotels and banquet halls with hospitals and convert them into hospitals. Hotels and banquet halls will not be opened for now," he said.

The Centre had said on May 30 that "Unlock-1" would be initiated in the country from June 8 and the lockdown would be relaxed to a great extent.

The Delhi government also issued an order allowing opening of restaurants, shopping malls and places of worship except in the COVID-19 containment zones, "subject to compliance with the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare".

Kejriwal urged the elderly people, who are at a higher risk of contracting the coronavirus, to confine themselves in a room and not to interact with even the family members in order to protect themselves.

Delhi has so far registered over 27,500 coronavirus cases, including 761 deaths.

New Delhi, Apr 25: With 1,429 more COVID-19 cases reported in the last 24 hours, India's count of coronavirus cases has reached 24,506, said Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on Friday.

Out of these, 18,668 patients are active cases and 5063 cases have been cured, discharged, or migrated.

The death toll stands at 775, with as many as 57 deaths reported in the last 24 hours.

According to the morning update by the ministry, Maharashtra continues to be the worst-hit State with 6,817 cases of which 840 patients have recovered and 301 patients have died.

Gujarat now stands in the second spot with 2,815 cases, of which 265 have recovered and 127 people have died. Meanwhile, Delhi's count stands at 2,514 of which 857 patients have recovered, while 53 patients have lost their lives.

Tamil Nadu's COVID-19 figure stands at 1,755 with 866 patients recovered and 22 fatalities. Rajasthan has reported 2,034 cases of which 230 have recovered and 27 patients are dead.

Madhya Pradesh has reported 1,852 positive cases so far of which 210 patients have recovered and 92 patients have lost their lives due to the virus. In Uttar Pradesh, as many as 1,621 people have confirmed COVID-19, of which 247 recovered and 25 people have succumbed to it.

In Kerala, which reported the country's first COVID-19 case, 450 people have been detected positive for coronavirus.

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.