Sushant Singh Rajput's death: Centre OKs Bihar govt's request for CBI probe; SC says 'truth should come out'

Agencies
August 5, 2020

Mumbai, Aug 5: A day after the Bihar government requested for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the death of Sushant Singh Rajput, the Centre has accepted the state’s request. 

The CBI, which falls under the Union Home Ministry, will now take over the probe. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on Wednesday stated in the apex court that the Centre has accepted the request floated by the Nitish Kumar government recommending a CBI inquiry.

A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy observed that truth behind the 34-year-old Rajput's death should come out. "Truth should come out so far as actor's death is concerned," the SC bench said as reported by news agency.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is also hearing a petition filed by model-actress Rhea Chakraborty who was in a relationship with the deceased actor. In her plea, she sought the transfer of an FIR lodged in Patna by Rajput's father, K K Singh, who had accused her of abetting his suicide.

The 34-year-old actor was found hanging from the ceiling of his apartment in suburban Bandra in Mumbai on June 14.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 1,2020

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.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 20,2020

New Delhi, Apr 20: With 1,553 more COVID-19 cases, India's total number of coronavirus cases has reached 17,265, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare said on Monday.

Out of the total cases, 14,175 cases are active, while 2,547 people have been cured/discharged/migrated and 543 deaths have been reported, as per the ministry.

As many as 36 deaths have been reported in the last 24 hours.

According to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Maharashtra continues to be the worst-affected state with a total of 4,203 cases. While 507 patients have recovered, 223 deaths have been reported.

Delhi comes next with 2,003 cases, out of which 72 patients have recovered while 45 patients have died.

Rajasthan has confirmed 1,478 cases, out of which 183 people have recovered while 14 patients are dead.

Tamil Nadu has reported 1,477 cases, out of which 411 have recovered and 15 have succumbed to the virus.

Madhya Pradesh has reported 1,407 cases, including 127 patients recovered and 70 patients dead. On the other hand, Uttar Pradesh has 1,084 COVID-19 positive cases.

In Kerala, which reported the country's first COVID-19 case, 402 people have been detected positive for coronavirus.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 25,2020

New Delhi, Apr 25: Neighbourhood and standalone shops, including those selling garments, mobile phones, hardware and stationery items have been allowed to open but those located in market places, malls and COVID-19 hotspots and containment zones, will continue to remain shut till May 3.

In rural areas, all shops, except those in single and multi-brand shopping malls, are allowed to open.

However, a Home Ministry official said the final decision of whether to allow the additional shops to open or not will be taken by the state governments and Union Territory administrations depending on their respective COVID-19 situation.
 
While allowing opening of more shops, a move seen as a relief to people who have been under lockdown since March 24, the government order issued on Friday night said the shops will be functioning with 50 per cent of workforce and after adhering strictly to precautions which include social distancing and wearing of masks.

The Union Home Ministry also said malls, liquor and cigarette shops, sale of non-essential items through e-commerce platforms continue to remain shut.

Restaurants, hair salons and barber shops will not be allowed to open as these render services and do not fall under the shop category.

Amending its April 15 order, Union Home Secretary Ajay Bhalla said in the Friday night order that "all shops, including neighbourhood shops and standalone shops, shops in residential complexes, within the limits of municipal corporations and municipalities, registered under the the Shops and Establishment Act of the respective State and UT" will be allowed to open during the lockdown.

The ministry also said shops located in registered markets located outside the municipal corporations and municipalities can open after following the drill of social distancing and wearing of masks but with 50 per cent of strength.

However, single and multi-brands shall continue to remain closed in these areas also.

"All shops registered under the the Shops and Establishment Act of the respective State/UT, including shops in residential complexes and market complexes, except shops in multi-brand and single brand malls, outside the limits of municipal corporations and municipalities, with 50 per cent strength of workers with wearing of masks and social distancing being mandatory" will be allowed to function, the order said.

In a statement on Saturday, the Home Ministry said the order implies that in rural areas, all shops, except those in shopping malls are allowed to open.

In urban areas, all standalone shops, neighbourhood shops and shops in residential complexes are allowed to open.

Shops in markets and market complexes and shopping malls are not allowed to open.

"It is clarified that sale by e-commerce companies will continue to be permitted for essential goods only," the order said and also added that sale of liquor and other items continues to be prohibited as specified in the national directives for COVID-19 management.

The ministry said that liquor shops were given licence under the Excise Act of the states and the establishments thrown open from Saturday were covered under the Shops and Establishment Act of the states.

Sale of cigarettes, gutka are continue to be prohibited during the lockdown.

"As specified in the consolidated revised guidelines, these shops will not be permitted to open in areas, whether rural or urban, which are declared as containment zones by respective States and Union Territories," the statement said.

The lockdown was first announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on March 24 in a bid to combat the coronavirus pandemic. It was further extended till May 3.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.