Is this Hinduism? Girls’ dress removed in temple, forced to remain topless

Bengaluru, Feb 27: Chief minister BS Yediyurappa has again kindled hope for several ministerial aspirants by suggesting he will expand his council of ministers in April. A dozen senior BJP legislators are aspiring for ministerial berths, but there are only six vacancies in Yediyurappa’s cabinet.

However, Yediyurappa suggested on Tuesday he will fill only three spots, one of which would go to Hukkeri legislator Umesh Katti. With this, lobbying has intensified for the two remaining berths as the expansion exercise is expected soon after the budget session that ends on March 29.

The aspirants include Murugesh Nirani, S Angara, Appachhu Ranjan, SA Ramdas, Aravind Limbavali, Narasimha Nayak and GH Thippareddy besides others.

Yediyurappa, it is being said, is keen on inducting Katti and Limbavali since they are close to him. He will leave the decision on choosing legislators for the remaining two berths to the party’s central leadership.

On more than one occasion in the past, Yediyurappa has publicly stated that his wish is to induct Katti, a former minister, into the cabinet. In fact, the CM had wanted to induct Katti in the previous expansion that took place last month, but dropped the idea at the last minute due to pressure from party bosses.

The CM is also under pressure to induct Athani legislator Mahesh Kumatalli, who was among 17 Congress-JD(S) MLAs who resigned to help the saffron party form the government. Several BJP MLAs and Lingayat seers have been piling pressure on Yediyurappa to make Kumatalli a minister as promised.

Kumatalli was denied a cabinet berth only to accommodate Katti. Both are Lingayats and from Belagavi district. As the Lingayat community already has a lion’s share in cabinet berths, the CM cannot afford to induct both.

Nirani, who has been leaving no stone unturned to secure a spot, reiterated his wish to become minister, but insisted he will not lobby for the post.

Yediyurappa has been upset with Nirani for lobbying for a berth through Panchamasali Mutt seer Vachananand Swami. The former minister was also part of the team of alleged disgruntled MLAs which met Jagadish Shettar at his residence to put pressure on the CM for cabinet berths.

However, while expressing confidence of being made minister when Yediyurappa’s expands his cabinet next, Nirani said, “Yediyurappa is not upset with me. My relationship with him is that of father and son. He knows me and what I am.”

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.

Houston, Jul 22: China said on Wednesday that the US has ordered it to close its consulate in Houston in what an official called an outrageous and unjustified move that will sabotage China-US relations.

Foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin condemned the action, which comes as tensions rise between the world's two largest economies. He warned of firm countermeasures if the US does not reverse its decision.

The unilateral closure of China's consulate general in Houston within a short period of time is an unprecedented escalation of its recent actions against China, Wang said at a daily news briefing.

There was no immediate confirmation or explanation from the U.S. side.

Media reports in Houston said that authorities had responded to reports of a fire at the consulate. Witnesses said that people were burning paper in what appeared to be trash cans, the Houston Chronicle reported, citing police.