No compromise on Savarkar: Shiv Sena's stern message to ally Congress

New Delhi, Jul 25: Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra on Saturday attacked the Yogi Adityanath government over its handling of the Covid-19 crisis, saying that at a time when there is an "explosive" rise in cases, the state dispensation's "no test is equal to no corona" policy can lead to a "more frightening situation".

In a letter to the Uttar Pradesh chief minister, the Congress general secretary said that the situation is getting serious and the battle against the pandemic cannot be fought just by publicity and managing news.

Priyanka Gandhi said she hopes the chief minister will take "big and effective" steps that will assure people that the government is committed to protect their lives and they will not be left to God for protection.

"By showing the fear of coronavirus, corruption is thriving. If this is not reined in, the battle against coronavirus will turn into a disaster," Priyanka Gandhi said.

Noting that 2,500 cases of coronavirus were reported in UP on Friday, she said almost all the metros were flooded with Covid-19 cases, but now even the villages were not unaffected by its spread.

"Quarantine centres in UP are in a pathetic state. In some places, the situation is so bad, that people are fearing mismanagement more than the coronavirus. Because of such a scenario, they are not stepping out of their homes for getting tested," Priyanka Gandhi said.

"This is a major failure of the government," she asserted.

The state government by believing in the "no test = no corona" mantra has adopted a low testing policy, she alleged in the letter written in Hindi.

"There is an explosive rise in Covid-19 cases. Till testing will not be increased in a transparent manner, the fight against the pandemic will be incomplete and the situation can become more frightening," she said.

"Your government claimed that there is provision for 1.5 lakh beds, but with only about 20,000 active infected cases, there is a scampering for beds," she said.

If there is a huge crowd in front of the hospitals, then why is the UP government not constructing temporary hospitals on the lines of those set up in Mumbai and Delhi, Priyanka Gandhi asked.

Availing medical facility is the fundamental right of every citizen, she asserted.

"The prime minister is a Member of Parliament from Varanasi, the defence minister is from Lucknow, many other Union ministers are from UP. Why can't temporary hospitals be opened in Varanasi, Lucknow, Agra etc." Priyanka Gandhi asked.

She suggested that temporary hospitals can be operated by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), the Army and the paramilitary, or if need be, the DRDO hospital can be brought to Lucknow.

Also, central facilities set up in Delhi can also be used for border districts, Priyanka Gandhi said, adding that their utilisation is not being maximised there.

Noting that home isolation was a good step, she said it should not be implemented in haste.

Informed decisions should be taken on key matters related to home isolation like what will be the arrangement for monitoring patients, who needs to be informed if the patient's condition worsens and what will the medical facilities cost in home isolation, she said.

What will be the arrangement for checking the temperature and oxygen level of the patients in home isolation, she further asked in the letter.

The government should do a complete mapping of it and give complete information at the local level to the public, Priyanka Gandhi said.

The Congress general secretary said that she realises, that often the state government feels that the Congress' suggestions are given only from a political point of view.

"This was evident from the response of your government while we were trying to get buses for UP workers who were walking home," she said.

"I want to assure you once again that protecting the health and life of the people of Uttar Pradesh is our biggest sentiment at this time. We are continuously striving with constructive support and a spirit of service," she said in the letter.

At this time when the pandemic is growing rapidly, the Congress stands with the people of UP and is ready to give full support to the state government, she said.

Tightening its grip over Uttar Pradesh, Covid-19 claimed a record 50 lives in the state on Friday as the deadly virus infected 2,667 people more in the largest single-day spike till date.

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, Jun 18: Sonia Gandhi on Wednesday removed Sanjay Jha as a party spokesperson, days after he wrote a newspaper article criticising the party. She also approved the appointment of Abhishek Dutt and Sadhna Bharti as national media panelists for the Congress.

"Congress president has also approved that Sanjay Jha be dropped as AICC spokesperson with immediate effect," the party said in an official statement.

In the article published a few days ago, Mr Jha had said, "The Congress has demonstrated extraordinary lassitude, and its lackadaisical attitude towards its own political obsolescence is baffling..."

"I would like to call a spade a spade here and a shovel: there has been no serious effort to get the party up and running with any sense of urgency," he had said in the article in a national newspaper.

"There are many in the party who cannot comprehend this perceptible listlessness. For someone like me, for instance, permanently wedded to Gandhian philosophy and Nehruvian outlook that defines the Congress, it is dismaying to see its painful disintegration," he had said.