Economic outlook cloudy in FY20: RBI annual report

Thiruvananthapuram, Jun 6: The Sabarimala Temple in Kerala is set to reopen from June 14 for devotees for monthly pooja and festival.

The temple will be open for the five-day monthly rituals in the Malayalam month of Midhunom that begins on June 15. From June 19-28 is the Sabarimala festival

A virtual queue system has been put in place in which 200 people will be allowed to register within an hour, Devasom Minister Kadakampally Surendran said.

To avoid crowding, only 50 devotees will be allowed to be present in front of the temple.

Before entering the premises, people will be scanned in Pampa and Sannidhanam. As a precautionary measure, people have been asked to wear mask and sanitation would be carried out at regular intervals.

Notably, no accommodation will be provided to the devotees in Sabarimala.

According to the Devasom Minister the administration has made two slots for the temple visit-- 4 am to 1 pm and 4 pm to 11 pm.

Also, the vehicles will only be allowed till Pampa. People coming from other states are required to register at government COVID Jagrata pass registration portal. Moreover, Appam and Arvana will be provided only through online booking.

Also, the devotees coming from other states will have to upload Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) labs certificate as a proof that they have not been infected with the lethal infection.

Also for the Guruvayoor Temple, the district collector, police and temple administration will hold a meeting to decide on the re-opening of the Temple. Here too devotees have to get themselves registered online.

In a single day, 600 people would be allowed to offer prayers at this shrine. Each hour, 150 people will be allowed to enter the premises.

Also, the time slot will be provided to people. In one batch 50 people will be allowed for 15 minutes inside the premises

Not only that, but marriages can also again be solemnised with divine blessings at the Guruvayoor temple. The administration will allow only 60 marriages in a day.

Weddings were stopped at the temple, due to the COVID-19 lockdown that was in place since March 24.

A marriage group should not have more than 10 people, including the bride and the groom and it is mandatory for the group to abide by the social distancing norm.

Washington, May 4: Anxious for an economic recovery, President Donald Trump fielded Americans' questions about decisions by some states to allow nonessential businesses to reopen while other states are on virtual lockdown due to the coronavirus.

After more than a month of being cooped up at the White House, Trump returned from a weekend at the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland and participated in a “virtual” town hall, hosted Sunday night by Fox News Channel, from inside the Lincoln Memorial.

He pushed for an economic reopening, one his advisers believe will be essential for his reelection chances this November.

“We have to get it back open safely but as quickly as possible," Trump said.

The president acknowledged fear on both sides of the issue, some Americans worried about getting sick while others are concerned about losing jobs.

Though the administration's handling of the pandemic, particularly its ability to conduct widespread testing, has come under fierce scrutiny, the president defended the response and said the nation was ready to begin reopening.

“I'll tell you one thing. We did the right thing and I really believe we saved a million and a half lives,” the president said.

But he also broke with the assessment of his senior adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, saying it was “too soon to say" if the federal government was overseeing a “success story."

Trump's impatience also flashed. While noting that states would go at their own pace in returning to normal, with ones harder hit by the coronavirus going slower, he said that “some states frankly I think aren't going fast enough" and singled out Virginia, which has a Democratic governor and legislature.

And he urged the nation's schools and universities to return to classes this fall.

But many public health experts believe that cannot be done safely until a vaccine is developed.

Trump declared Sunday that he believed one could be available by year's end although his own pandemic task force has predicated it could be another 18 months.

Federal guidelines that encouraged people to stay at home and practice social distancing expired late last week.

Debate continued over moves by governors to start reopening state economies that tanked after shopping malls, salons and other nonessential businesses were ordered closed in attempt to slow a virus that has killed more than 66,000 Americans, according to a tally of reported deaths by Johns Hopkins University.

The U.S. economy has suffered, shrinking at a 4.8 per cent annual rate from January through March, the government estimated last week. It was the sharpest quarterly drop since the 2008 financial crisis.

Roughly 30.3 million people have filed for unemployment aid in the six weeks since the outbreak forced employers to shut down and slash their workforces. It was the worst string of layoffs on record.

Larry Kudlow, Trump's top economic adviser, on Sunday predicted a “spectacular 2021” — with “the right set of policies” — on top of a rebound from July through December of this year.

He said on CNN's "State of the Union" that the administration would "pause” to review the effectiveness of trillions in economic relief spending before making any decision on whether additional aid is needed.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Thursday that state and local governments are seeking up to USD 1 trillion for coronavirus costs, The Senate planned to reopen Monday, despite the Washington area's continued status as a virus hot spot and with the region still under stay-at-home orders.

The House remains shuttered. The pandemic is forcing big changes at the tradition-bound Supreme Court: The justices will hear arguments, beginning Monday, by telephone for the first time since Alexander Graham Bell patented his invention in 1876.

Congressional Republicans are resisting calls by Democrats for emergency spending for states and local governments whose revenue streams all but dried up in recent weeks.

The GOP is counting on the country's reopening and the rebound promised by Trump as their best hope to forestall another big round of virus aid.

The leaders of California and Michigan are among governors under public pressure over lockdowns still in effect while states such as Florida, Georgia and Ohio are reopening.

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, said Sunday that the armed protesters who demonstrated inside her state's Capitol “depicted some of the worst racism” and “awful parts” of US history by showing up with Confederate flags, nooses and swastikas.

Trump had tweeted “LIBERATE” and named Michigan and other states in mid-April. In a new tweet Friday, he urged Whitmer to “make a deal” with the protesters. “These are very good people, but they are angry.

They want their lives back again, safely!” Trump said.

Despite the opposition of Michigan's Republican-controlled Legislature, Whitmer has extended a state of emergency declaration and directed most businesses statewide to remain closed.

Some people participating in other public protests across the US have not kept their distance from one another and have rallied without masks, not heeding public health recommendations.

Deborah Birx, coordinator of the White House coronavirus task force, called that behavior “devastatingly worrisome.”

She said people will feel guilty for the rest of their lives if they end up infected and unwittingly spread the virus to vulnerable family members.

“We need to protect each other at the same time we're voice our discontent,” she told CNN's “State of the Union.”

An overwhelming majority of Americans support stay-at-home orders and other efforts to slow the virus' spread, according to a recent survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

Asked about states that are reopening before they meet benchmarks laid out in federal guidelines she helped write, Birx said the guidelines “are a pretty firm policy of what we think is important from a public health standpoint.”

She added that she and others have made it clear that people must continue practising social distancing, “scrupulous” hand washing and other measures to protect themselves and others.

Fox News Channel said it asked viewers to submit questions about reopening the country on the network's Twitter, Facebook and Instagram accounts for a chance to appear on the rare broadcast from the Lincoln Memorial. Trump spoke from the memorial's steps last July Fourth.

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.