Economic outlook cloudy in FY20: RBI annual report

New Delhi, Jul 10: With the highest single-day spike of 26,506 COVID-19 cases and 475 deaths reported in the last 24 hours, the total number of COVID-19 cases in India reached 7,93,802 on Friday, according to the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

Out of the total number of cases, 2,76,685 are active, 4,95,513 have been cured/discharged/migrated and 21,604 have died so far due to the infection.

With as many as 2,30,599 COVID-19 cases, Maharashtra continues to remain the worst-affected state, followed by Tamil Nadu (1,26,581) and Delhi (1,07,051).

Meanwhile, 2,83,659 samples were tested for coronavirus on Thursday, taking the total number of samples tested up to July 9 to 1,10,24,491, according to the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR).

Jan 1: The ban on the practice of instant triple talaq, making it a penal offence and the increase in the strength of Supreme Court judges were two of the major achievements of the law ministry in 2019.

In July, Parliament gave its nod to The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2019. The new law makes talaq-e-biddat or any other similar form of talaq having the effect of instantaneous and irrevocable divorce pronounced by a Muslim husband void and illegal.

It makes it illegal to pronounce talaq three times in spoken, written or through SMS or WhatsApp or any other electronic chat in one sitting.

According to the new law, any Muslim who pronounces the illegal form of talaq upon his wife shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

During the year, four new judges were appointed to the Supreme Court in September, taking its strength to 34, the highest-ever.

However, vacancies in high courts and lower courts are on the rise and convincing state governments and the 25 high courts to come on board to create an all-India judicial service to recruit judges for the subordinate courts tops the agenda of the Law Ministry in 2020.

Besides creating a consensus on setting up the All-India Judicial Services, the ministry will also have to focus on filling up vacancies in the high court. On an average, the vacancies stood at 400 throughout this year.

With more than 5,000 positions of judicial officers in district and subordinate courts lying vacant, the Law Ministry has pitched for setting up all-India judicial services.

The sanctioned strength of the judicial officers in district and subordinate courts was 22,644. The number of judicial officers in position and vacant posts is 17,509 and 5,135, respectively.

The government has proposed that while states and high courts can recruit judicial officers, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) can hold pan-India entrance tests.

The ministry has made it clear that such services would not encroach on the powers of the states.

As of now, the selection and appointment of judges in subordinate courts is the responsibility of the high courts and state governments concerned.

The Narendra Modi government has given a fresh push to the long-pending proposal to set up the new service to have a separate cadre for the lower judiciary in the country.

But there is a divergence of opinion among state governments and respective high courts on the constitution of the All India Judicial Service (AIJS).

One of the problems cited is that since several states have used powers under Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to declare that the local language would be used in lower courts even for writing orders, a person say selected from Tamil Nadu may find it difficult to hold proceedings in states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.

The other point of opposition is that an all India service may hamper the career progression of state judicial services officers.

Another key issue the ministry has to handle in 2020 is vacancies in the 25 high courts.

Throughout 2019, on an average, the high courts faced a shortage of 400 judges.

According to Law Ministry data, as on September 1, the high courts had 414 vacant positions as compared to the sanctioned strength of 1,079 judges. The figure was 409 in August and 403 in July, as per the data.

A three-member Supreme Court collegium recommends the names of candidates for appointment as high court judges. In case of appointments to the Supreme Court, the collegium consists of five top judges of the top court.

High court collegiums shortlist candidates for their respective high courts and send the names to the law ministry.

The ministry, along with background check reports by the Intelligence Bureau, forwards it to the Supreme Court collegium for a final call.

The government has maintained that appointment of judges in the high courts is a "continuous collaborative process" between the Executive and the Judiciary, as it requires consultation and approval from various Constitutional authorities.

Vacancies keep arising on account of retirement, resignation or elevation of judges and increase in judges' strength. In June last year, the vacancy position stood at 399, while it was 396 in May.

In April, 399 posts of judges were vacant, while the figure was 394 in March. The vacancy position in February stood at 400 and in January, it was 392, according to the data collated by the Department of Justice.

Over 43 lakh cases are pending in the 25 high courts.

Another priority would be the finalisation of the memorandum of the procedure to guide the appointment and transfer of the Supreme Court and high court judges. The issue had now been pending for over two years now with the SC collegium and the government failing to reach a consensus.

Successive governments have also been working on making India a hub of international arbitration. It has taken several steps to change laws dealing with commercial disputes.

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.