Father chops off 18-year-old son’s hand for watching porn on phone

Jaipur, Jul 14: In a show of strength, Deputy Chief Minister Sachin Pilot-led Rajasthan Congress camp on Monday released a video showing at least 16 MLAs sitting together.

This comes hours after the Congress held a legislature party meeting. Party leaders said 106 of 122 MLAs attended, a claim contested by the Pilot camp.

The 10-second video was shared late at night on Pilot's official WhatsApp group.

In the video, at least 16 MLAs are seen sitting together in a close circle. Pilot is not seen in the video.

Six other people can be seen in the video but they could not be identified.

Some of the MLAs seen in the video are Indraraj Gurjar, Mukesh Bhakar, Harish Meena.

Tourism Minister Vishvendra Singh tweeted the video with the caption "Family".

Ladnun MLA Mukesh Bhakar tweeted, "...Loyalty in Congress means Ashok Gehlot's slavery. That is not acceptable to us."

Pilot has been upset since he was denied the Rajasthan chief minister's post after the December 2018 assembly elections.

On Sunday, he claimed to have the backing of 30 Congress MLAs and "some independents".

Those close to him disputed Gehlot's claim that his government had a majority, and said this is proven in the assembly and not at the CM's house.

Sources close to him have also ruled out the possibility of Pilot joining the BJP.

In the 200-member Rajasthan Assembly, the Congress has 107 MLAs and the BJP 72. In the past, the ruling party has claimed the support of 13 independents, two MLAs each from the CPM and the Bharatiya Tribal Party, and one from the Rashtriya Lok Dal.

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.

Mumbai, Jul 15: A domestic row between a couple spilled onto road when a woman stopped her husbands car and climbed on its bonnet, briefly disrupting traffic on the busy Pedder Road in South Mumbai, police said on Wednesday.

The incident, which took place on Saturday evening, was recorded by some passersby on their mobile phones and its videos are making rounds on social media.

The wife chased the husband's SUV (sports utility vehicle) in her car after she spotted another woman seated next to him in his vehicle.

As her husband's SUV stopped at the Pedder Road signal, the wife get down from her car, rushed towards his four-wheeler and started shouting at him, a police official said.

Guess what's happening in the video
.
.
.
.
This video has two parts.

First part here.
Second part in comment pic.twitter.com/BnVwmKw02a

— Kamran (@CitizenKamran) July 12, 2020

In the video, the woman is seen climbing the bonnet of the SUV, removing her footwear and hitting the vehicle's windshield with it. She is also seen asking the husband's co- passenger to get out of the SUV and shouting for police help.

As she stopped her car in the middle of the busy road, one lane got blocked for some time and the traffic police personnel present there tried to ensure movement of other vehicles, the official said.

After sometime, the traffic police asked the couple to take their cars near the footpath.

By that time, the husband stepped out of his SUV, following which the wife ran towards him and caught him. She even kicked him a couple of times and took him to her car, the video shows.

She then again ran towards her husband's SUV, which was parked a few metres away. She opened its driver-side door and lunged at the woman seated in the vehicle, but was stopped by some people who had gathered at the spot, the police official said.

Later, the couple and their cars were taken to Gamdevi police station, where the wife refused to lodge a complaint against her husband.

A fine was imposed on her for traffic rules violation and abandoning her car in the middle of the road, which caused disruption of vehicular movement, the official said.