Darbhanga beheading: RJD attacks BJP, says no one is safe in Bihar; police deployed

Hyderabad, May 19: Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrashekar Rao has hit out at the Narendra Modi-led NDA government over the fiscal stimulus package, accusing it of treating states like "beggars" and imposing "laughable" conditions for increasing borrowing limits under the FRBM Act.

"This is 'pure cheating. Betrayal. Jugglery of numbers. All gas. The Centre has reduced its own prestige," he said while referring to conditions linked to the increased borrowing limits for states under the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act.

Rao cited international journals that had commented on whether the Union Finance Minister's aim was to revive the GDP or to reach the Rs 20 lakh crore number (the stimulus package announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi).

"This is a very cruel package. It is fully in a feudal policy and dictatorial attitude. We fully condemn this. This is not what we asked for," Rao, who had supported several measures taken by the Centre so far in the fight against coronavirus, said.

At a time when the finances of states were paralysed due to COVID-19 global pandemic, the state governments wanted funds to reach them so that they can help people in different forms, he said. "When we asked for it, you treat states like beggars, what did the Centre do? Is this the way reforms are implemented in India?" he asked during an interaction with media on Monday after a cabinet meeting.

For example, two per cent increase under the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act (about Rs 20,000 crore in Telangana) has been given.

But, the conditions put are "laughable" and "very nasty" though the loan was to be fully repaid by the state, he said.

Explaining the situation, Rao said Rs 2,500 crore would be given if reforms were implemented in power sector and Rs 2,500 crore would be allowed if reforms in market committees as suggested by the central government are accepted.

"Is this a package? What is this? This cannot be called a package. Very sorry.. This is not the policy to be followed in a federal system... Then what are the state governments for?" the Telangana Rashtra Samithi supremo asked and said they were also constitutional governments and not subordinates.

The CM said he felt anguished and the way the Centre was wielding control over states was against the spirit of federalism.

"Prime Minister ji said cooperative federalism. This has proved that it is totally hollow and bogus," he added.

The state, however, has already fulfilled certain conditions, he added.

On the occasion, Rao also outlined his government's certain policy guidelines for regulatory farming proposed to be implemented.

On the additional water proposed to be drawn by the neighbouring Andhra Pradesh from Srisailam project, he said there was no question of compromising on the states interests.

Flaying Opposition criticism against his government for allegedly failing to protect the state's interests, Rao said he had sought peaceful co-existence with all the neighbouring states.

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.

Ahmedabad, Mar 24: The Gujarat police has detained 426 people in the last 24 hours for violating lockdown rules in force in the state to combat the novel coronavirus outbreak, a senior official said on Tuesday.

They include those who came out despite being advised home quarantine, state Director General of Police Shivanand Jha said.

"The lockdown met with around 90 per cent success. We are taking strict measures to implement the lockdown in the remaining 10-15 per cent areas. We have lodged 238 cases related to the violation of police notification and 127 cases related to quarantine rule violation. In all, we have detained 426 persons across the state," Jha told reporters in Gandhinagar.

"For better implementation of the lockdown and to address issues concerning people, we have set up a dedicated 24-hour control room and appointed two additional DGP rank officers to supervise operations. Three teams under them would work to resolve issues across the state," said Jha.

He said police commissioners and districts SPs have been asked to enforce the lockdown in an effective manner.

Essential services like vegetable and milk shops are allowed to remain open, he said, and asked people not to flock in large numbers to such shops.

The state has so far reported 33 COVID-19 cases, and one person has died of the infection.