Goa deputy speaker slams government for failing to check cow vigilantes

Thiruvananthapuram, Apr 20:  Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Monday said that the government would revoke the order, which allowed the opening of barbershops and restaurants in the State.

The development comes after the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) objected to the move.
When asked about the letter issued by the MHA terming certain decisions as to the dilution of guidelines, Chief Minister Vijayan said: "There is no confrontation between the State government and the Centre."

"Kerala is following all directions issued by the Centre. Barbershops will not be opened and restaurants will only provide online delivery," he told the reporters, adding that public transport would not be allowed.

"There was a decision to open barbershops but many experts have pointed out against the decision. So the Kerala government is withdrawing the decision," he said.

Earlier, Chief Secretary Tom Jose said that if needed, then the State government will make necessary modifications to the lockdown guidelines in the wake of a communication received from the Central government.

The MHA had objected to the decision of Kerala government to allow services like barbershops, local workshops, restaurants, etc., and had urged the State government to revise its lockdown guidelines.

The Government of India had said that violation to lockdown measures reported posed a serious health hazard to the public and risk the spread of COVID-19.

Union Home Secretary Ajay Bhalla wrote to all Chief Secretaries and a separate letter had been sent to the Kerala Chief Secretary asking them not to dilute lockdown guidelines in any manner.

In his letter to the Kerala Chief Secretary, Bhalla had stated that the consolidated revised guidelines on the measures to be taken by the Ministries/Departments of the Government of India has been circulated on April 15 for containment of COVID-19.

Kerala Minister Kadakampally Surendran had said that relaxations have been given abiding by the direction issued by the Central government. He had added that the Centre may have asked for an explanation due to some misunderstanding.

India is under a nation-wide lockdown that came into force on March 25 to contain the spread of coronavirus, which has claimed 559 lives in the country. Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the extension of lockdown till May 3.

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.

New Delhi, Jul 16: A group of 174 Indian nationals, including seven minors, has filed a lawsuit against the recent presidential proclamation on H-1B that would prevent them from entering the United States or a visa would not be issued to them.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson at the US District Court in the District of Columbia issued summonses on Wednesday to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad F Wolf, along with Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia.

The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court on Tuesday.

"The proclamation 10052's H-1B/H-4 visa ban hurts the United States' economy, separates families and defies the Congress. While the two former points render it unseemly, the latter point renders it unlawful," said the lawsuit filed by lawyer Wasden Banias on behalf of the 174 Indian nationals.

The lawsuit seeks an order declaring the presidential proclamation restriction on issuing new H-1B or H4 visas or admitting new H-1B or H-4 visa holders as unlawful. It also urges the court to compel the Department of State to issue decisions on pending requests for H-1B and H-4 visas.

In his presidential proclamation on June 22, Trump temporarily suspended issuing of H-1B work visas till the end of the year.

"In the administration of our nation's immigration system, we must remain mindful of the impact of foreign workers on the United States labor market, particularly in the current extraordinary environment of high domestic unemployment and depressed demand for labor," said the proclamation issued by Trump.

In his proclamation, Trump said the overall unemployment rate in the United States nearly quadrupled between February and May of 2020 -- producing some of the most extreme unemployment ever recorded by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

While the May rate of 13.3 per cent reflects a marked decline from April, millions of Americans remain out of work.

The proclamation also extends till year-end his previous executive order that had banned issuance of new green cards of lawful permanent residency. Green Card holders, once admitted pursuant to immigrant visas, are granted "open-market" employment authorisation documents, allowing them immediate eligibility to compete for almost any job in any sector of the economy, Trump said.

Forbes, which first reported the lawsuit filed by the Indian nationals, said the complaint points out that the Congress specified the rules under which H-1B visa holders could work in the US and balanced the interests of US workers and employers.

"The complaint seeks to protect H-1B professionals, including those who have passed the labor certification process and possess approved immigrant petitions. Such individuals are waiting for their priority date to obtain permanent residence, a wait that can take many years for Indian nationals," Forbes reported.

Meanwhile, several lawmakers urged Scalia on Tuesday to reverse the work visa ban.

"Throughout this administration, the president has continued to lament the alleged abuses of the immigration system while failing to address the systemic problems that have persisted and allowed businesses and employers to exploit and underpay immigrant workers, guest workers and American workers," the lawmakers wrote.

"This misguided attempt by the president to scapegoat immigrants for policy failures during the pandemic not only serves to hurt immigrants, but dismisses the true problem of a broken work visa program that is in desperate need of reform," said the letter, which among others was signed by Congressmen Joaquin Castro, Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus; Bobby Scott, Chair of the Education and Labor Committee; Karen Bass, Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus; Judy Chu, Ra l Grijalva, Vicente Gonzalez, Yvette Clarke and Linda S nchez.