UP govt to withdraw communal violence cases against BJP leaders

Jaipur, Jul 18: BJP leader Laxmikant Bhardwaj filed a complaint against Congress leaders including Randeep Surjewala and Govind Singh Dotasra for associating Union Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat's name with an alleged audio clip related to "conspiring to topple" the elected government led by Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot in Rajasthan.

"Mahesh Joshi, Randeep Surjewala, and other accused have regularly been giving false and inflammatory statements against the BJP to criminally damage its reputation so that the blame for the current sorry state of affairs of the Congress can be pinned on the BJP. With the ill-intention of damaging the BJP''s reputation, a conspiracy was formed at the Chief Minister''s residence situated at 8 Civil lines," read the letter written by BJP Rajasthan spokesperson Bhardwaj to the Station Officer of Ashok Nagar police station read.

"From there (CM's residence) imitation of (voices) of people were falsely told to be of that of reputed leaders from the BJP and a fake phone conversation was created through which the false narrative of crores of rupees being offered to buy off Congress MLAs was created. The accused involved in this conspiracy have severely misused their position and power and the whole crime has been conducted by one named Lokesh Sharma, who calls himself an OSD of the Chief Minister," the letter further stated.

The complaint letter also said that Lokesh Sharma had "released three audio tapes to media workers on July 16, 2020, somewhere around 8:25 pm through WhatsApp so that the defamatory material can be circulated on a large scale to fulfill the criminal intent."

Mr Bhardwaj said that a news report in the Jaipur edition of a Hindi newspaper, published on July 17, 2020, had conveyed that the audiotape was released by Mr Sharma.

He further said that Congress leaders Randeep Surjewala, Govind Singh Dotasra, in a press conference held on Friday read out the conversation in the audio tapes publically and "using them as a basis accused the BJP of throttling democracy, sabotaging the mandate, and toppling the government."

Through this conspiracy, Mr Bhardwaj said that hateful and insulting comments are being made on the BJP and its supporters, and "on the basis of this the Special Operation Group (SOG) has filed fake lawsuits under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code and is also threatening BJP leaders of arrest."

The BJP leader has urged the police officer to file a complaint against Mr Sharma, Mr Surjewala, Mr Dotasra, and others involved in the alleged conspiracy and take necessary action and recover the equipment used by them.

On June 17, Congress spokesperson Randeep Surjewala had accused Union Cabinet Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat and Congress legislator Bhanwarlal Sharma of conspiring to topple the elected government led by Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot in Rajasthan and subvert the voters' mandate.

"Yesterday, shocking tapes were aired by the media in which Union Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat, BJP leader Sanjay Jain and Congress MLA Bhanwar Lal Sharma spoke about bribing MLAs and bringing down Rajasthan government. Congress has suspended MLAs Bhanwar Lal Sharma and Vishvendra Singh from the primary membership of the party. The party has also issued show-cause notices to them," Mr Surjewala had said.

"We demand Rajasthan government and Special Operations Group (SOG) to register FIR and arrest the culprits as plenty of evidence has surfaced now," he had further stated.

Mr Surjewala had read out a transcript of an audio of alleged horse-trading between rebel MLAs and BJP, stating, "BJP has breached the trust of people. The audio clip reveals a horse-trading deal. This is a dark chapter in the history of democracy."

"This time the Narendra Modi government has challenged the wrong state," the Congress leader had said. He had alleged that the BJP has been "conspiring to topple Rajasthan government and buy legislators' allegiance."

New Delhi, Jun 8: Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has gone into self-quarantine after developing sore throat and fever, and will get himself tested for COVID-19 on Tuesday, officials said on Monday.

They said the chief minister, who is also a diabetic, was feeling unwell since Sunday afternoon.

"He has mild fever and sore throat since Sunday afternoon. As advised by doctors, the chief minister will undergo COVID-19 test on Tuesday morning," officials said.

Officials said the CM had attended a Cabinet meeting on Sunday morning and thereafter, he did not attend any meeting.

The chief minister has been holding most of his meetings via video conferencing from his official residence for past two days.

This come as the number of coronavirus cases in the national capital crossed the 28,000-mark with 1,282 fresh infections while the death toll climbed to 812 on Sunday, a health bulletin issued by the Delhi government said. According to the health bulletin, the total number of COVID-19 cases in Delhi rose to 28,936 with 1,282 fresh cases.

A total of 51 fatalities were reported on June 6, the bulletin said, adding that these lives were lost between May 8 and June 5. It, however, said the cumulative death figure refers to fatalities where the primary cause of death was found to be COVID-19, according to a report of the Death Audit Committee on the basis of the case-sheets received from various hospitals.

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.