Manipur: 12 Congress MLAs tender resignation from party posts citing moral ground

Jaipur, Jul 13: Congress Legislature Party (CLP) on Monday unanimously passed a resolution supporting Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot-led government and accusing the BJP of destabilising the government by indulging in horse-trading of MLAs.

The CLP also condemned all "undemocratic" acts to weaken Congress party and its government and demanded action against any Congress office-bearers involved in anti-party activities.

"Feared by exemplary works and public service of Congress government, BJP-led conspiracy is trying to destabilise Congress' state government, horse-trading of MLAs and trying to murder democracy by using money and political power," read the resolution.

"It is unfortunate that BJP did not learn lessons from the defeat in the Rajya Sabha elections and are trying to destabilise Congress government using corrupt means. 

This ripping off of democracy by BJP is an insult to 8 crore people of Rajasthan, they will not accept it. CLP meet expresses its confidence in Congress President Sonia Gandhi and leader Rahul Gandhi, and unanimously supports the government led by Ashok Gehlot," it said.

"This meet urges that strict disciplinary action be taken against any office-bearer or member of Legislative Party who indulges in activities against the Congress government, party or gets involved in any conspiracy," read the resolution.

As many as 107 MLAs attended the CLP meeting, which begun in the afternoon and now has been concluded.

"107 MLAs are present at the CLP meeting in Jaipur," Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot's media advisor confirmed to media.

The crisis in Rajasthan Congress intensified with Gehlot and his deputy Sachin Pilot at loggerheads. While Gehlot is blaming BJP for trying to destabilise the state government by poaching MLAs, Pilot is camping in Delhi to speak to the party leadership regarding the political turmoil in the state.

BJP has claimed that the Ashok Gehlot-led government has lost the majority in the state.

"Sachin Pilot was the rightful candidate for the post of Rajasthan Chief Minister but Ashok Gehlot took the charge; a conflict in the party began since then. What is happening today is the result of that conflict. The state government has lost the majority," Rajasthan BJP President Satish Punia said today.

Srinagar, Feb 9: Authorities on Sunday snapped mobile internet services in Kashmir as a precautionary measure to prevent any law and order disturbance on the seventh death anniversary of Parliament attack convict Mohammad Afzal Guru, officials said.

The mobile internet services were suspended early in the morning as the authorities apprehended violence in the valley in view of the bandh call given by separatist outfits, the officials said.

The authorities had restored 2G internet services in Kashmir on January 25, more than five months after snapping all communication facilities in the valley following abrogation of Article 370 on August 5 last year.

Police on Saturday lodged an FIR against the banned Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) for calling a strike on Afzal Guru's death anniversary.

Guru was hanged in 2013 inside Tihar jail for his role in the Parliament attack in December 2001.

Two journalists were summoned by police for reporting the JKLF press release, which had called for strike on Sunday and Tuesday -- the death anniversary of the outfit founder Mohammad Maqbool Bhat.

They were let off after five hours of questioning. Bhat was hanged in 1984 and is buried inside Tihar jail.

Meanwhile, normal life in Kashmir was affected due to the strike, the officials said.

Markets and business establishments remained closed, while public transport was largely off the roads, they said.

There have been no reports of any untoward incident from anywhere in the valley so far, the officials added.

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.