PM Modi turns emotional after Dehradun woman says, 'I have seen God in you'

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.

Mumbai, Jan 30: The Shiv Sena on Thursday endorsed Union home minister Amit Shah's view that alleged inflammatory statements made by Sharjeel Imam, an anti- Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) activist, were dangerous.

No politics should be done on the issue, and such "pest" afflicting the country should be finished off, it said.

Imam was arrested on Tuesday in connection with his speeches at Jamia Millia Islamia University in Delhi and in Aligarh during anti-CAA protests.

He has been booked for sedition, among other offences.

In an editorial published in its mouthpiece `Saamana', the Sena, a former ally of the BJP, said, "We agree with union home minister's comments that Sharjeel Imam's alleged words of separation are more dangerous than that of Kanhaiya Kumar."

Kumar, former student leader from Jawaharlal Nehru University, had been arrested over alleged separatist slogans shouted during a protest on varsity campus.

The Sena, which has formed alliance with the Congress and NCP to come to power in Maharashtra, is often seen walking a tightrope to preserve its credentials as a pro-Hindutva party.

"The union home ministry, while initiating action against Imam, should not indulge in politics and try to finish off this pest that is afflicting our country," the editorial said.

"One must find out why such language of breaking up this country into pieces is being used by the educated youth of this country more and more frequently. Who is spewing such venom into the mind of Sharjeel who did his graduation from IIT-B and now pursuing PhD from JNU?" the Sena asked.

"Even people involved in Elgar Parishad at Pune are facing sedition charges and these people have been known as intellectuals and are well-known personalities," said the party.

"A conspiracy to bring about a conflict between Hindus and Muslims and ensure continuance of anarchy and civil war as in Iraq and Afghanistan exists. The boost for such activities is coming from a 'political laboratory'," the editorial said.

New Delhi, Jul 23: With the highest single-day spike of 45,720 cases, India's coronavirus count crossed 12 lakh mark on Thursday.

The Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare informed that 1,129 deaths were recorded in the last 24 hours.

The total number of coronavirus cases stand at 12,38,635 including 4,26,167 active cases, 7,82,606 cured/discharged/migrated. The cumulative toll has reached 29,861 deaths.

Maharashtra has reported 3,37,607 cases, highest in the country followed by Tamil Nadu with 1,86,492 cases. Delhi coronavirus count has reached 1,26,323 cases.

According to the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), 1,50,75,369 samples were tested till July 22 out of which 3,50,823 samples were tested yesterday.