Hyd, JNU were ultra-Left movements with a small section of Jehadis: FM

March 28, 2016

New Delhi, Mar 28: Both the Hyderabad Central University (HCU) and JNU events were “ultra-Left movements” also involving a small section of “jehadis”, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley contended on Sunday.

fm-LIn the case of JNU, the predominant section of those involved in the agitation was “ultra-Left” barring a small section of “jehadis”, who had their faces masked during a demonstration on the campus on Feb 9 in which anti-national slogans were raised, he said.

The name of Dr B R Ambedkar was “unfairly used” in the case of HCU where protests erupted after the suicide by a research scholar Rohith Vemula, Jaitley said during an interaction with PTI journalists here.

He drew satisfaction from the fact that religious and minority groups and their leaders across the country had not participated in the debate set off by the events in the two universities.

“The moderate Left and the Congress had got trapped into what was otherwise a movement of the ultra-Left,” the minister said, adding that the BJP had therefore taken it as an ideological challenge.

The BJP had won the first round of this “ideological debate” in the sense that everybody had to come at least “close to the position we were taking”.

Asked if he expected more rounds in the debate, the BJP leader said that it was not a battle his party had started. “We are not raising the debate to this extent (of further rounds) but if somebody against starts the whole idea, then the debate will certainly carry on.”

When asked if the BJP was reaping political dividends by raising the nationalism debate, Jaitley said, “I am not looking for a dividend. This was an ideological positioning and we have made our point. On this battle I don’t think we can lose.”

Jaitley said they took it as an ideological challenge and “whether for posturing or otherwise, as the core debate proceeded....at least they were pushed into this position (to say Jai Hind instead of Bharat Mata Ki Jai). I am quite happy and satisfied that they were pushed into this position.”

Answering questions, Jaitley saw no contradiction between the government's agenda of development and the debate over nationalism.

“I think there is a section in this country, however small, which does not find this discourse very fascinating. So it wants to divert the issue.

“It is not compulsory in this country to raise a slogan (of Bharat Mata ki Jai). But it became an issue only when somebody said I take objection and I will not raise it,” he said in an apparent reference to a declaration made by Majlis MP Asaduddin Owaisi.

Asked if it was an overkill to slap sedition charges against JNU students union President Kanhaiya Kumar, Jaitley said it was a legal issue and he would not like to get into it.

PTI

"That is a matter of individual culpability. Whether he is technically liable, what sections should he be prosecuted for and whether he should be prosecuted or not. I do not want to prejudice the trial even against him or for that matter anybody else.

"There are slogans being raised that this country will be broken up by 'jung' (war). We will break up this country by jung. And an individual goes and participates in this unlawful assembly where this resolve is being made. So whether he is legally liable or not, is a question which courts will have to look into," he said.

Attacking the Congress, Jaitley said people from mainstream parties should have thought twice before joining an unlawful assembly which is talking of a 'jung' to break this country.

"In Parliament I had said there are two types of people--one who think first and then act and the other who act first and then think. Congress leaders first took the step. They went and joined and preached that this 'break up of this country' slogan is free speech and we have come here to defend this free speech."

The minister contended that the overwhelming majority of this country has disapproved of the very character of the anti-India slogans.

He said he was personally in favour of "radical romancing" in universities in which one says something not very responsible out of extra enthusiasm which after 10 years he realises that it was not the most sensible thing to do.

"You can give a licence for that. But I think having said that somehow to speak in terms of 'desh ki barbadi, desh ke tukde, tukde', I think this crossed all limits," he said.

Comments

TWIST
 - 
Monday, 28 Mar 2016

Cheddi chelas alwz taught to view as opposite..

Abdullah
 - 
Monday, 28 Mar 2016

Better to send him back Britian.
the agent of British now singing again the British tune.

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.
Agencies
July 13,2020

Jaipur, July 13: Amid a deepening political crisis in Rajasthan where the number 2 leader of the Congress party Sachin Pilot has revolted, over 200 Income Tax (I-T) sleuths raided the residences and properties of two of Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot’s close confidants.

The Income Tax department has carried out searches at over a dozen locations linked to Congress leader Dharamender Rathore as well as jewellery firm owner Rajiv Arora, both of whom are considered close to Gehlot.

Officials said that the raids that are underway in Jaipur, Kota, Delhi, and Mumbai were done after a complaint of tax evasion was made. Under the scanner, they said, are transactions that were made outside the country.

The curious timing of the Income Tax department’s action against Gehlot’s aides has made the Congress accuse the sleuths of acting on the behest of the BJP.

Congress spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala tweeted: “After all, BJP's lawyers came on the field. The Income Tax Department started raids in Jaipur. When will ED arrive?”

The Congress is facing a cliffhanger in Rajasthan after the open rebellion by deputy chief minister Sachin Pilot, who on Sunday night claimed that he had the support of 30 MLAs and that Gehlot was leading a minority government in the state.

However, Congress leader Avinash Pande on Monday said 109 MLAs have signed a letter of support to the chief minister, well above the majority mark of 100. The party has issued a whip to all the MLAs, asking them to attend the Congress Legislature Party meeting at 10.30 am. 

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
June 6,2020

New Delhi, Jun 6: With 9,887 new positive cases reported in the last 24 hours, India's COVID-19 count touched 2,36,657 on Saturday surpassing Italy's latest tally of over 2.34 lakh, taking India to the sixth spot among countries with the highest caseloads of the virus.

The Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) said that India registered a spike of 9887 new cases and 294 deaths in the past 24 hours taking the tally to 1,15,942 active cases and 6642 deaths.

Today's count was the highest single-day spike in the country, which has now overtaken Italy, according to the tally posted by the Johns Hopkins University which posted that globally the coronavirus had infected over 66.64 lakh people and claimed over 3.91 lakh lives so far.

In india, the MoHFW informed that 1,14,073 persons have been cured/discharged/migrated so far.

Maharashtra remains the worst-hit State as the total number of COVID-19 positive cases reached 80,229. While the total number of active cases in the state stands at 42,224.

In Tamil Nadu, 28,694 cases have been detected so far while Delhi has reported 26,334 coronavirus cases.

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.