Gorakhpur infant deaths: Allahabad HC grants bail to Dr Kafeel Khan

Patna, Jan 25: JD Women's College in Patna has issued a direction to the students to follow the prescribed dress code on the campus while stating that wearing a 'burqa' in college is prohibited.

"All students have to come to college in the prescribed dress code, every day except on Saturday. Students are prohibited from wearing 'burqa' in college", reads a notice signed by the Principal and Proctor of the college.

The college administration has also imposed a fine of Rs. 250 for violation of the norm.

Mumbai, Feb 17: The Shiv Sena on Monday said the ongoing preparation for the much awaited visit of US President Donald Trump is a reflection of the "slave mentality" of Indians.

Trump's India trip is like the visit of a "Badshah" (emperor), an editorial in Sena mouthpiece 'Saamana' said.

Taking a dig at the construction of a wall on a plot having several slum structures in Ahmedabad ahead of Trump's visit there, the Sena said the US president's trip would neither stop the fall of rupee's value in forex market nor offer betterment to those (slum dwellers) behind the wall.

"Before Independence, British King or Queen used to visit one of their slave nations like India. The kind of preparations going on from taxpayers' money for the arrival of Trump is similar to it. This reflects the slave mentality of Indians," it said.

The Sena also took a swipe at Prime Minister Narendra Modi over the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation's (AMC) move to build wall on a plot to "hide the slums" on the route through which Trump's convoy would pass.

"Former prime minister Indira Gandhi had once given the slogan 'Garibi Hatao', which was ridiculed for a long time. It seems now Modi's plan is 'Garibi chupao' (hide poverty)," the Marathi publication said.

Is there any financial allocation for such a wall being built in Ahmedabad? Is the US going to offer loan to India to build such walls across the country? it wondered.

"We have heard Trump is going to be in Ahmedabad for only three hours but the wall construction is costing almost Rs 100 crore to the state exchequer," it said.

It is basically a political arrangement between Prime Minister Modi and US President Trump, the Sena claimed.

Last year, 'Howdy, Modi!' (a mega event jointly addressed by the Indian prime minister and Trump) was organised in the US, it noted.

A similar programme, "Kem Chho Trump" (Gujarati expression for how are you Trump), has been now organised (in Ahmedabad) ahead of the US elections, chiefly because of a sizable number of Gujarati people living in America, the Shiv Sena claimed.

"But this visit of President Trump is neither going to stop further fall of rupee in the forex market nor offer betterment to those behind the wall (being built in front of slums in Ahmedabad)," it said.

The Sena said Trump is "not someone very wise or a statesman or someone who cares for the whole world", but he has to be treated with respect as he represents the mighty US.

"Sometimes you have to treat someone with respect to get your things done," it quipped.

The AMC on Friday said the construction of the wall, around four feet in height, was approved much before Trump's Gujarat visit was finalised.

Trump is scheduled to visit Modi's home state Gujarat on February 24.

He will visit the famous Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmedabad and take part in a roadshow with Modi. After that, the two leaders will inaugurate a new cricket stadium in Motera and address a gathering there, with an expected audience of over a lakh people.

While it was earlier speculated that the programme would be called 'Kem Chho Trump', the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on Sunday tweeted a series of posters confirming that the event is now christened as 'Namaste Trump', apparently to give it a pan-India appeal.

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.