5 saffron extremists including a Mangalurean are key suspects in Gauri Lankesh murder

Bengaluru, Jan 18: The searches by income-tax officials at the residence of south Indian actress Rashmika Mandanna at Virajpet in Kodagu district were concluded on Friday.

The searches, conducted since Thursday by sleuths from Bengaluru, were concluded on Friday morning, the family said.

Speaking to reporters outside the house, the actress's mother Suman said: "We all cooperated with the officials since Thursday. The officials asked some questions which we answered properly."

Rashmika, who was not at the residence when the I-T officials arrived, joined them on Thursday night, she added.

According to sources, IT officials from Bengaluru who arrived in three cars on Thursday verified documents pertaining to properties, bank accounts and investments.

Rashmika has acted in several Kannada and Telugu movies. Her recent film 'Sarileru Neekevvaru' opposite popular Telugu actor Mahesh Babu is in the theatres now.

Bengaluru, Jun 28: Former Chief Minister and senior Congress leader Siddaramaiah asked the Karnataka government to release White Paper over the state of healthcare system and the government's preparedness to address COVID-19 pandemic.

He said that the State Government to come clean on the charges of misappropriation of large sums of funds in the name of fighting the COVID-19 pandemic in the state.

"People are extremely worried about the state of our healthcare system and the government's preparedness to address pandemic. It is the responsibility of Karnataka Chief Minister to clear the doubts and reduce the panic among people. I urge the government to #ReleaseWhitePaper about the same," the Congress leader tweeted.

Siddaramaiah said that the Chief Minister should let people know about the amount of money already spent to improve healthcare facilities, the number of beds and ventilators increased and about the supply of PPE kits to COVID-19 warriors.

"Karnataka Chief Minister should also reveal the contribution of PMO India to our state. Has Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa demanded anything from Narendra Modi? How much of PM CARES Fund is spent for Karnataka's healthcare?" he asked in another tweet.

He went on to say that PMO India and Chief Minister of Karnataka "wasted crucial time during lockdown."

"The purpose of lockdown was to fill the gaps in health care system. But they just widened it by frequently changing the protocols and by not doing adequate tests," he said.

"Karnataka Chief Minister and other departments have failed to answer my multiple queries regarding the actions taken. As a leader of opposition, it is my right to question the government on behalf of people. Deliberate act of denying information is a breach of privilege. Government hospitals have reached its capacity and private hospitals are not ready to treat patients at capped prices," he wrote.

Siddaramaiah said that the Karnataka Chief Minister should either convince private players or take action against them, and added, "Not doing both is like pushing people off the cliff."

He tweeted, "The testing rates per day have come down in last 15 days even when the cases are rising. What is stopping the government from increasing the testing? The government is putting people at risk by not testing adequately."

Further attacking the state government, he wrote, "Our state needs 9000 ventilators, but we have only 1500, PMO India has sent 90 to us. Is this a joke to Karnataka Chief Minister and PMO India? #ReleaseWhitePaper about the ways that they plan to increase ventilators."

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.