Fingers, hands raised against PM Modi will be chopped off: Bihar BJP chief

Kasaragod, Jul 26: First funeral, now wedding. Forty-three persons who attended a wedding at Pilankatta in Chengala panchayat in Kasaragod on July 17 have tested positive for Covid-19, said district medical officer (DMO) A V Ramdas.

They include the bride and the groom. Collector D Sajith Babu has asked all those who attended the wedding to go into home quarantine for 14 days. Those with Covid symptoms should get in touch with the nearest primary health centre, he said.

The DMO said samples of 128 persons linked to the wedding were tested, of which 43 turned out positive. Earlier, 44 persons who attended a funeral in Cherkala in the first week of July had tested positive. The funeral was declared a cluster and the government had to test 522 persons linked to the funeral.

The collector said those taking part in funeral or weddings without following the Covid protocol would be booked under the Kerala Epidemic Diseases Act. If convicted, they would face up to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of `10,000. Kasaragod police said they will register a case in connection with the wedding. 

Pilankatta ward member Abdulla Kunhi K B said it was not a big fat wedding. The ceremony held at the bride’s house at Pilankatta was attended by less than 100 people, he said.“Theirs is a big family with four houses in one compound. 

As many as 30 members are staying in these houses,” said Kunhi. Nine of the 30 have tested positive.Of the 15 guests, who came from the bride’s mother’s house, 12 contracted the infection. “The rest of the infected persons were among the groom’s guests,” said Kunhi, who did not attend the wedding. The groom and the bride’s father returned from Dubai three months ago.

1,049: state records biggest recovery
A total of 1,049 Covid patients recovered on Saturday. This is the first time that the number of recoveries crossed the 1,000-mark in the state. The previous highest was 968 reported on Friday. So far, as many as 8,613 patients have recovered.

roping in ayush experts a challenge  
Plan to bring AYUSH practitioners for treating positive patients at CFLTCs is going to be a challenge for the government. It turned out that respective associations were planning to approach the government with an individual charter of demands. 

New Delhi, Jun 15: On Monday, petrol and diesel prices across the country were raised for the ninth consecutive day by 48 paise and 59 paise, respectively.

Petrol price per litre was raised to Rs 76.26 in New Delhi, Rs 83.17 in Mumbai, Rs 79.96 in Chennai, Rs 79.17 in Hyderabad, Rs 78.73 in Bengaluru and Rs 78.10 in Kolkata.

Diesel price per litre was hiked to Rs 74.62 in New Delhi, Rs 73.21 in Mumbai, Rs 72.69 in Chennai, Rs 72.93 in Hyderabad, Rs 70.95 in Bengaluru and Rs 70.33 in Kolkata.

Since 7 June, after ending their 82-day hiatus in daily revision, state-owned oil marketing companies have increased petrol price by Rs 5 per litre and diesel by Rs 5.23 per litre.

These prices are close to levels last seen in October-November 2018 when international oil prices had spiked close to $80 per barrel. In October 2018, petrol price in Mumbai had crossed Rs 90-mark and in Delhi, it was around Rs 83 per litre.

Comparatively, on Monday, Brent crude, the international benchmark for crude oil prices, fell 2.3 percent to $37.84 a barrel over concerns of subdued demand for fuel as new coronavirus infections were reported in China and the US.

The present spike in fuel prices in India could be attributed to the fact that central and state governments, along with oil marketing companies are looking to make up for their loss in revenues due to the lockdown.

Last month, the central government had increased the excise duty on per litre of petrol by Rs 10 and per litre of diesel by Rs 13. Several state governments have also hiked their VAT or cess on fuel in the last month. In fact, now around 70 percent of the retail price of fuel is just some form of tax.

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.