Why expect jobs from govt? Start paan shop or breed cows: BJP CM tells people

New Delhi, Feb 5: Taking on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal after Shaheen Bagh shooter Kapil Baisala was identified as an AAP worker by police, BJP chief J P Nadda on Tuesday said it exposed the party and Kejriwal who were playing with the country's security.

The Aam Aadmi Party hit back, questioning the police investigation.

In a series of tweets, Nadda said people of the country and Delhi today have seen the "dirty face" of AAP.

"For political longing, Kejriwal and his people even sold the security of the country. Earlier, Kejriwal used to insult the Army and advocate terrorists, but today relations with those who carry out their terrorist activities came to light," he said.

Nadda said he wanted to make it clear to Kejriwal that this country is bigger than any election, any government, and "this nation will not forgive those who play with its security. Kejriwal and his entire team have been exposed. The people of Delhi will give a befitting reply".

He claimed the entire country has seen "photos of Imam Hussain, the MLA and former minister of the Delhi government, with a radical terrorist organisation, PFI".

Days before Delhi goes to polls, police claimed that Baisala is a member of the Aam Aadmi Party. They said Baisala joined the party in early 2019 along with his father.

Police said it had photos of Baisala purportedly joining AAP along with his father Gaje Singh last year.

AAP's Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh alleged that photos which were part of investigation were leaked to the BJP. He also said the party will approach the Election Commission to raise this issue, which has cropped up four days before the polling date.

"On whose instance, the police is giving statement? How did the photos which were part of the investigation reach the BJP? Before the news came out, Manoj Tiwari in the morning stated that the accused was from AAP. How did Manoj Tiwari get this news," Singh questioned in a press conference.

Union minister and BJP's in-charge for the Delhi polls, Prakash Javadekar, in a press conference alleged that "their (AAP's) designs are very clear from the beginning and they are trying every trick".

The whole conspiracy of AAP is to "divide society, cause fear in a community and create a vote bank," he charged.

Javadekar also claimed that photos of Baisala were recovered by police from his mobile phone although they were erased.

He also claimed that Baisala and his father were welcomed by Sanjay Singh at their joining of AAP.

"This proves AAP misleads youth and pushes them on the wrong path. AAP's strategy is to divide two communities, they want to instigate riots in Delhi," Javadekar alleged.

He further alleged that AAP leader Sanjay Singh had said violence would take place in Delhi. Their "conspiracy has been exposed by Delhi Police," he claimed.

"We condemn this politics of AAP," he said.

Javadekar also claimed this was "not an isolated incident" as AAP member Amanatullah Khan made a "very provocative speech" and the party supported Shaheen Bagh and did not give permission for the prosecution of members of the "tukde-tukde gang".

He hinted the BJP could approach the Election Commission against AAP over the issue.

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.