PM Modi to feature in Discovery's 'Man vs Wild' with Bear Grylls

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.

New Delhi, Apr 21: The historic rout in oil markets that sent US crude prices plummeting to as much as minus USD 40 a barrel is unlikely to translate into any big reduction in petrol and diesel prices in India as domestic pricing is based on different benchmark, and refineries are already filled up to brim and cannot buy US crude just yet.

With storage capacity already overflowing amid coronavirus-induced demand collapse, traders rushed to to get rid of unwanted stocks triggering the collapse of US West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude for May delivery.

Indian Oil Corp (IOC) Chairman Sanjiv Singh said the collapse was triggered by traders unable to take deliveries of crude they had previously booked because of a demand collapse. And so they paid the seller to keep oil in their storage.

"If you look at June futures, it is trading in positive territory... around USD 20 per barrel," he said.

Low oil prices may seem good in short-term but in the long run it will hurt the oil economy as producers will have no surplus to invest in exploration and production which will lead to a drop in production, he said.

He did not comment on retail fuel prices that have been static since March 16.

Oil companies have not changed rates despite a fall in international prices as they first adjusted them against the increase that was warranted from a Rs 3 per litre hike in excise duty and close to Re 1 per litre additional cost of switching over to cleaner BS-VI grade fuel from April 1.

Petrol in Delhi is priced at Rs 69.59 a litre and diesel comes for Rs 62.29 per litre.

"The negative price has no direct impact on India or Indian oil prices, as this has taken place due to crude oil produced and traded within the US. India's prices are driven partly by another benchmark, the Brent, which is still trading at USD 25/barrel. Therefore, the retail price of fuels in India are unlikely to fall," said Amit Bhandari, Fellow, Energy and Environment Studies, Gateway House.

Also, Indian refineries are already overflowing as fuel demand has evaporated due to the unprecedented nationwide lockdown imposed to curb spread of COVID-19. So, they can't rush to buy US crude.

The refineries have already cut operating rate to half because the fuel they produce has not been sold yet.

India imports 4 million barrels/day (1.4 billion barrels/year) of oil. The country has been benefitting from the falling prices of oil for the last five years, when oil dropped from a peak of USD 110/barrel to USD 50-60/barrel last year, enabling India to invest in public service programmes.

"However, the additional USD 30 fall of this week is good for India - but there is also a downside. If oil prices are too low, the economies of oil-rich gulf countries will be hurt, threatening the job prospects of the 8 million Indians working in the Gulf countries. India is the largest recipient of foreign remittances due to these workers – very low oil prices will hurt this cash stream," Bhandari said.

He said the negative price of oil shows how much oil oversupply exists in international markets today. "Global oil consumption has fallen due to the COVID-19 pandemic that traders are willing to pay customers to get rid of the barrels they can't store. The world does not have enough storage capacity, and dumping the oil is an environmental crime."

The first half of April saw Brent crude oil prices plummet 63.6 per cent to USD 26.9 per barrel. Prices of Western Texas Intermediate (WTI), the American oil, had also fallen similarly by 63.1 per cent.

But on April 20, WTI prices turned rapidly negative because traders on the Nymex exchange rushed to offload their May futures positions a day before expiry of contracts (on April 21).

Such WTI futures are traded on the Nymex exchange with contracts settled in physical crude oil. Problem is, those who had gone long are unable to find storage facilities for the oil and had to liquidate their contracts before expiry. This caused the plunge in WTI prices.

Contrast to this, June WTI Nymex futures prices is hovering around USD 21, while Brent for June delivery is at USD 25.

Miren Lodha, Director, CRISIL Research said the demand for crude oil was declining already because of economic slowdown when the COVID-19 pandemic-driven lockdowns crushed it further.

Consequently, oil demand is expected to contract by 8-10 million barrels per day (mbpd) in 2020 assuming demand recovery begins from the third quarter of the year, he said, adding if recovery doesn't happen by then, further demand destruction could occur.

On the supply side, producers reining in output following a strategic deal between OPEC members, Russia and the US.

Under this agreement, OPEC+ would reduce oil production by 9.7 mbpd for May and June, but gradually ease the curb to 7.7 mbpd between July and December 2020, and to 5.8 mbpd till April 2022 to stabilise prices.

"This is expected to reduce some surplus in the market by the end of 2020," Lodha said.

Crude oil demand is expected to decline by over 20 mbpd in April alone. Typically, monthly global demand is about 100 mbpd. Given this scenario, supply curbs would have limited influence.

Consequently, Brent oil prices is expected to be in the USD 25-30 range for the second quarter while increasing marginally in the last 2 quarters of 2020.

"The gigantic inventory build-ups and lack of storage facilities would also put pressure on prices," he said, adding overall Brent could average USD 30-35 in 2020, with a strong downward bias.

New Delhi, Mar 12: The Supreme Court told the Uttar Pradesh government on Thursday that as of now, there was no law that could back their action of putting up roadside posters of those accused of vandalism during anti-CAA protests in Lucknow.

An apex court bench refused to stay the March 9 Allahabad High Court order directing the Yogi Adityanath administration to remove the posters.

The top court, which grilled the Uttar Pradesh government for putting up such posters in public, described the plea as a matter that needed "further elaboration and consideration".

A vacation bench of justices U U Lalit and Aniruddha Bose said a "bench of sufficient strength" would consider next week the Uttar Pradesh government's appeal against the Allahabad High Court order directing the state administration to remove the posters of those accused of vandalism during anti-CAA protests.

It directed the apex court registry to put up the case file before Chief Justice of India (CJI) S A Bobde so that a "bench of sufficient strength can be constituted at the earliest to hear and consider" the case next week.

During the hearing, the bench told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, that it was a matter of "great importance".

It asked Mehta whether the state government had the power to put up such posters.

The top court, however, said there was no doubt that action should be taken against rioters and they should be punished.

Mehta told the court that the posters were put up as a "deterrent" and the hoardings only said that these persons were liable to pay for their alleged acts during the violence.

Senior advocate A M Singhvi, appearing for former IPS officer S R Darapuri whose poster has also been affixed in Lucknow, told the bench that the state was duty-bound to show the authority of law backing its action.

He said the action of the Uttar Pradesh government amounted to a "mega blanket" approach of naming and shaming these persons without final adjudication and it was an open invitation to common men to lynch them as the posters also had their addresses and photographs.