Congress discarded 'Dalit' leader S. Kesri for Sonia: Modi

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, Mar 6: As panicky depositors rushed to withdraw money from Yes Bank whose control was seized by the RBI in a dramatic late-night move, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on Friday assured depositors that their money is safe and said the central bank was working for an early resolution of the crisis.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on Thursday evening capped withdrawals at Rs 50,000 for the next one month and imposed strict limits on operations at the country's fourth-largest private lender that faced "regular outflow of liquidity" after an effort to raise new capital failed.

"I am in continuous interaction with the RBI. The RBI is fully seized of the matter and has assured they will give a quick resolution," Sitharaman said here.

She said no depositor will lose his or her money and insisted that the immediate priority is to ensure Yes Bank customers are able to withdraw money within the stipulated cap.

"I want to assure every depositor that their money shall be safe. Their monies are safe," she said. "I am constantly in contact with the RBI and the steps that are taken are taken in the interest of depositors, banks and economy. We are fully seized of the development."

She was talking to reporters after meeting State Bank of India (SBI) Chairman Rajnish Kumar. On Thursday, the SBI board gave its "in-principle" approval to exploring investment opportunities in Yes Bank.

"So I repeat, the depositors can be assured that their money is safe," she said.

Soon after the RBI takeover, depositors thronged Yes Bank ATMs to withdraw money and police had to be deployed in some places to control the crowds.

Yes Bank has 1,000 branches across the country.

Refusing to elaborate on her meeting with the SBI chairman, the minister said that "was on a completely different matter".

"RBI governor has given me assurance that there will be an appropriate resolution soon. No depositor will lose (money)," she said. "Reserve Bank has taken cognizance of the problem."

The central bank, she said, has gone through the "process over and over again to find out an amicable solution".

"And that has been over the last couple of months. So it is not as if they have come in suddenly now. We have been monitoring the situation," she said adding the RBI has appointed an administrator who previously was with the SBI.

"Both the RBI and the government are looking at this with all the details before them, not just today. I have personally monitored the situation over the last couple of months with the RBI. Therefore we have taken a course which will be in everybody's interest," she added.

Yes Bank had been seeking new capital since last year to bolster its ratios and quell questions about its stability due to its exposure to the non-banking finance industry entangled in a prolonged crunch in the local credit market.

The SBI chairman said the resolution to the Yes Bank crisis will come "very shortly".

"This is not a sectoral problem. It is a bank-specific problem," he said. "The RBI will take all steps to ensure financial stability."

On SBI picking up a stake in Yes Bank, he said the lender already has an in-principle approval for doing so.

"If SBI has to pick up a stake in Yes Bank, we have an in-principle approval for that," he said.

Commenting on the crisis at Yes Bank, Alka Anbarasu, Vice President – Senior Credit Officer, Financial Institutions, Moody's Investors Service, said: "RBI's moratorium on Yes Bank is credit negative as it affects timely repayment of bank depositors and creditors."

"While Moody's expects Indian authorities will take steps to prevent the weakness in the bank's viability from significantly impacting its depositors and senior creditors, the lack of a coordinated and timely action highlights continued uncertainty around bank resolutions in India," she said.