PFI leader among two arrested in RSS worker Sharath murder case

London, Jan 11: Former cricketer Sachin Tendulkar's famous lap around the Wankhede Stadium after the World Cup 2011 win has been nominated in Laureas's list for the most inspiring sporting event in the last twenty years.

The moment featuring Tendulkar has been described as "Carried on the shoulders by a nation".

On his sixth attempt at the World Cup and with India not having won the competition since 1983, Tendulkar finally became a part of the team that lifted the coveted trophy. Carried on the shoulders of the Indian team, he made a lap of honour, shedding tears of joy after the victory was sealed in his home city.

The 2011 World Cup was also the first time, in which a host nation ended up winning the trophy.

Apart from Tendulkar, England's Andrew Flintoff is the only other cricketer to feature in the list. In 2005, England managed to defeat Australia in an Ashes Test, but Flintoff chose to first shake hands with Brett Lee rather than celebrate with his side.

Matthias Steiner (weightlifting), Natalie du Toit (swimming), Sky Brown (skateboarding), Alistair and Jonathan Brownlee (triathlon), Xia Boyu (mountaineering) have been nominated in the list.

Female tennis stars also feature in the list for coming up with an equal play, equal pay campaign. After pressure from Venus Williams and others, Wimbledon announced that female tennis players would receive prize money equal to the men's.

German international footballer Miroslav Klose was playing for Lazio in Italy's Serie A in 2012 against Napoli when he rose for a ball in the early moments of the game.

The ball came spiraling off his hand and skirted into the back of the net and a goal was awarded. While most players would carry on as if nothing had happened, Klose was honest with the referee and admitted that he handled the ball.

As a result, he also finds a place on the list.

The Laureus Sporting Moment Award celebrates the moments where the sport has unified people in the most extraordinary way.

This campaign has shortlisted 20 sporting stories from the last 20 years that have left their mark on the world.

The winner will be decided on the basis of public voting. It has already started, and the final date to cast the vote is February 16.

Finally, the result will be declared on February 17.
With three knock-out rounds, the top-20 moments will be whittled down to ten then five, with the top-five moments going head-to-head.

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.