BJP's Kerala unit chief Rajasekharan sworn in as Mizoram Governor

New Delhi, Jun 25: The Congress on Thursday asked Prime Minister Narendra Modi why has not India gained anything from the "strange bonhomie" which it claimed he shared with China.

Seeking to turn the tables on the ruling party, Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera said the BJP also shared bonhomie with the Communist Party of China (CPC) with several party-level exchanges taking place in the past.

He sought to know whether India's borders have become safe after these exchanges in the last many years.

The Congress leader asked what has the country gained out of these exchange delegations and why are the borders insecure despite the bonds that the two ruling parties of India and China share with each other.

"There is a strange kind of bonhomie between Narendra Modi and China, a two decade old bonhomie. Why doesn't the country get the benefit of that bonhomie," he asked at a virtual press conference.

Khera said all that the Congress will continue to question is about the political will that just does not get visible when it comes to China.

"Whatever is happening on the border today, is it despite the bonhomie which you have with China, or is it because of the bonhomie which you have with China. The country needs to know," he asked.

"We do want to ask you, if as president of the party, Rajnath Singh, Nitin Gadkari and Amit Shah have been sending delegations,  strengthening the bonds between the Communist Party of China and the BJP. What has the country gained out of these bonds? Why are the borders insecure despite these bonds that you have," he also asked.

The ruling has hit out at the Congress for signing an MoU with China's Communist Party and has questioned its "bond" with the ruling party in China.

Khera also asked what role did the India Foundation, an organisation run by National Security Adviser Ajit Doval's son has in strengthening the bonds with China.

"Why does India Foundation keep visiting these countries? Who do they meet? What's the outcome? What's the role of NSA Ajit Doval's son- Shaurya Doval? He keeps attending these meetings through India Foundation? These are important questions in the light of what is happening," he asked.

Khera said the prime minister is showing "red eyes" to those who are asking him questions instead of showing them to the enemy.

"It is time to stand with the Army and show red eyes to China," he said.

The Congress leader said questions will be asked to Modi especially when there are definitive reports, satellite images of incursions in the Ladakh region of India by the Chinese.

He alleged that China laps up the comment of Modi and uses it across the world that the Indian prime minister says that China is in its own territory and Galwan is theirs.

"After a lot of pressure, PMO contradicted what the prime minister said. This kind of a goof up is unpardonable," he alleged.

New Delhi, Feb 9: Calling India a "long-standing friend", Sri Lankan Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa on Saturday thanked Prime Minister Narendra Modi for visiting his country in the aftermath of last year's Easter Sunday terror attacks and outlined that New Delhi has always helped Colombo in its fight against terrorism.

In a joint press briefing with PM Modi, Mahinda Rajapaksa said he hopes that India will continue to help Sri Lanka fight terrorism.

Mahinda Rajapaksa expressed his gratitude to PM Modi for the neighbourhood first policy and the priority India gives to Sri Lanka.

"We had agreed that our cooperation is multifaceted and priority is given to a number of areas including security, economy, culture and social sectors. Part of our discussions centered on cooperation with regard to the security of the two countries. India has always assisted Sri Lanka to enhance our capacity, capabilities in intelligence and counter-terrorism. We look forward to getting continued support in this regard," he said.

"I thank the Prime Minister for visiting Sri Lanka in the aftermath of the Easter Sunday terror attacks that provided us with immense strength to come to terms with the tragedy. We also appreciate Prime Minister Modi's $400 million line of credit to enhance the economy of Sri Lanka and another $50 million line of credit for fighting terrorism," he added.

The Sri Lankan president urged PM Modi to consider further assistance to expand housing projectS all over Sri Lanka to benefit people from rural areas.

"The Prime Minister and I discussed how Sri Lanka and India can work together in the field of economy. India is among the world's fastest growing economies. I discussed with PM Modi how Sri Lanka could benefit from certain economic sectors where India is in a strong position," he said.

Concluding his statement, Mahinda Rajapaksa said, "India is our closest neighbour and a long-standing friend. The close historical links...provided a solid foundation to our ties."

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.