‘I was raped for 8 months; baba supplied school girls to politicians’

Jaipur, July 13: Amid deepening political crisis in Rajasthan, a crucial meeting of the Congress Legislature Party (CLP) will be held at the chief minister's residence here on Monday.  

The Congress has issued a whip to all party legislators mandating their presence during the meeting which will be convened at 10.30 am by Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot.

Deputy Chief Minister Sachin Pilot has made it clear that he is not going to attend the meeting.

In a statement issued on Sunday night, Pilot had claimed that the Ashok Gehlot government was in minority and more than 30 Congress and some independent legislators have pledged support to him.  

By doing so, he has openly displayed rebellion against the leadership of Gehlot.

However, All India Congress Committee (AICC) general secretary Avinash Pande has said that 109 MLAs have expressed confidence in the Ashok Gehlot-led Congress government in the state and have signed a letter in support.

Pande said a whip had been issued asking all the MLAs to attend the CLP meeting and that action will be taken against those who skip it.

In the 200-member Rajasthan Assembly, the Congress has 107 MLAs and the BJP 72.

The Congress has the support of 10 out of 13 independents, and other party MLAs like Rashtriya Lok Dal (1), which is its ally. The Congress also considers Bhartiya Tribal Party (2) and CPI(M) (2) MLAs as their supporters.

BJP ally Rashtriya Loktantrik Party (RLP) has three MLAs in the assembly.

Thiruvananthapuram, Mar 7: Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Saturday came down heavily on the BJP-led government at the Centre for imposing a ban on two Malayalam channels in connection with the Delhi violence reporting, saying an "undeclared emergency" was prevailing in the country.

Terming the ban as a "dangerous trend", the left leader said it was an indication of the coming dangers. "The Centre has made an infringement into the freedom of the press, crossing all limits. There is a threat that if anybody criticises RSS and Sangh Parivar, they will be taught a lesson," he said here in a statement.

The channels- Asianet News and MediaOne were suspended for 48 hours over their coverage of last month's riots in Delhi, with the official orders saying they covered events on February 25 in a manner that "highlighted the attack on places of worship and siding towards a particular community".

However, the ban was lifted on Saturday morning. Urging everyone to adopt a "democratic vigil" against such trends, the Chief Minister said the tactics of the Centre was to bring everyone under its control by instilling fear.

It was seen that such an approach had repeatedly been made on Parliament, constitutional bodies and judiciary in recent times, he said. Claiming that one of the reasons for the ban was criticism of RSS and the Delhi police by the channels, he said no one is beyond that. "How can it be illegal to criticise RSS? The Constitution guarantees the right of any citizen to express his opinion fearlessly," he said.

People have the right to know what is happening in the country and the media has the right and responsibility to report it, Vijayan said adding that the fourth estate should be allowed to act "freely and equitably". The ban on Asianet News was lifted at 1.30 am, while the ban on Media One was lifted at 9.30 am on Saturday, a source at the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting told PTI.

Sources said the two channels had written to the ministry seeking revocation of the bans, following which it was lifted. "Channel's reporting on Delhi violence seems to be biased as it is deliberately focusing on the vandalism of CAA supporters," the ministry order on Media One had said.

"It also questions RSS and alleges Delhi Police inaction. Channel seems to be critical towards Delhi Police and RSS." The ministry had ordered prohibition of transmission or re-transmission of Media One and Asianet News for 48 hours on any platform throughout India with effect from 7.30 pm on Friday to 7.30 pm on Sunday. The Congress and the CPI had flayed the government over the suspension of Media One and Asianet News, calling the clampdown as "stifling of media freedom".

Former chief minister Oommen Chandy said the ban on the two malayalam channels was an "affront" on the democratic rights of the media. The fourth estate is the pillar of democracy and attempts to suppress the media by the government is "extremely worrying", he said in a facebook post.

"I join all democratic minded citizens in strongly condemning such attempts to muzzle the media by the government," he said. Meanwhile, Press Club, Kerala Union of Working Jouranlists (KUWJ) and Kerala Newspaper Employees Federation (KNEF) took out a march to the General Post Office here against the Centre's action on the two channels.

Media personnel holding placards and raising slogans participated in the march against the centre's decision. Similar protests were held in various parts of the state.

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.