UP govt preparing plan to open shelters for stray cows: Yogi

New Delhi, Apr 20: The Centre on Monday said that India's COVID-19 doubling rate has improved to 7.5 days from 3.4 days before the lockdown was enforced to check the spread of the coronavirus.

"India's doubling rate before the lockdown was 3.4 days. It has now improved to 7.5 days. As per data on April 19, in 18 States, the rate is better than the national average," said Lav Agarwal, Joint Secretary, Union Health and Family Welfare Ministry, at a daily briefing here.

"The number of districts where no case has been reported in the last 14 days has increased to 59 in 23 States and UTs. Goa is now COVID-19 free," he said.

India's total number of coronavirus positive cases has risen to 17,656 including 14,255 active cases, 2,842 cured/discharged/migrated and 559 deaths, according to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

"Mahe in Puducherry, Kodagu in Karnataka and Pauri Garhwal in Uttarakhand have not reported any COVID-19 case in last 28 days," said Agarwal.

Let us take a look at the top developments of the day regarding the COVID-19 situation in the country:

1. There are 23 active COVID-19 cases in Himachal Pradesh. 11 patients have recovered, four migrated out of the State and one person succumbed to the disease. A total of 2,902 people have been tested for COVID-19 so far, said Himachal Pradesh Health Department.

2. The number of COVID-19 cases has risen to 408 in Karnataka including 16 deaths and 112 discharges, according to the state Health Department. 18 new cases have been reported in the last 24 hours.

3. "14 new COVID-19 cases reported, all from Kashmir. The total number of cases now stands at 368, Jammu-55 and Kashmir-313," said Rohit Kansal, Principal Secretary, Planning, Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir administration.

4. According to Punya Salila Srivastava, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry wrote to Kerala government yesterday, expressing concerns over modified guidelines regarding lockdown. "Kerala has allowed some activities that violate the Ministry's instructions issued under the Disaster Management Act," she said.

5. Five more police personnel from Chandni Mahal police station have tested positive for COVID-19. Till now eight personnel from the police station have tested positive for the virus, according to the Delhi Police.

6. Total 57 new COVID19 cases and two deaths have been reported today. Cumulative positive cases now stand at 1,535, and toll at 25, said Rajasthan's Health Department.

7. Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has said that RTPCR kits are US FDA approved and have good standards and these should be stored under 20-degree temperature for better result.

8. "A total of 283 more COVID-19 cases have been reported in Maharashtra, taking cumulative positive cases in the State to 4,483, as of 11 am today. Of the 283 new cases, Mumbai has recorded 187," said Rajesh Tope, Maharashtra Health Minister.

9. One new COVID-19 positive case was reported today in Bokaro, taking the total number of cases in the State to 42, said Nitin Madan Kulkarni, Jharkhand's Health Secretary.
10. According to Punjab's Health Department, only one person has been tested positive for COVID-19 in the State today. The person is a contact of the COVID-19 patient.

11. "There is only one red zone district in Chhattisgarh. For the last 72 hours, no COVID-19 positive patient has been found even in that red zone district. I am hoping that whole of Chhattisgarh will be green zone soon," said Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel.

12. Six new COVID-19 cases were reported in Kerala, all from Kannur, of which 5 have foreign travel history. Total cases in the State at 408, including 114 active cases, said Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan.

Meanwhile, the Centre has constituted six Inter-Ministerial Central Teams (IMCTs), two each for West Bengal and Maharashtra and one each for Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan to make an on-spot assessment of the situation and issue necessary directions to the state authorities for their redressal and submit a report to the Central government in the larger interest of the general public.

Kochi, Jan 21: A special court here on Tuesday sent two students, who were arrested under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) case in Kozhikode last November, to the custody of National Investigation Agency (NIA) for a day.

The NIA court ordered that the duo, who were in judicial custody till now, to be produced before it tomorrow.

In its application, the NIA had said that the accused must be interrogated on the basis of digital records and sought custody of the duo for a week.

However, the defendant argued that no new evidence had been found against the accused and therefore no custody should be granted.

During an earlier hearing, the two had told the court, "We are not Maoists. We are CPI (M) activists. The Chief Minister, who says we are Maoists, should bring proof of whom we killed and where we bombed. In the last election, we have served as CPI (M), booth agents. We are the ones who went out to vote and pasted posters for the party."

The two were charged under Sections 20 (punishment for being a member of terrorist gang or organisation), 38 (offence relating to membership of a terrorist organisation) and 39 (offence relating to support given to a terrorist organisation) of the UAPA.

Allen and Thaha, students of law and journalism respectively of Kannur University, were taken into custody by the police from Pantheerankavu in Kozhikode on November 1 last year.

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.