I skipped rally because I was misled: Anna Hazare

New Delhi, Feb 4: Senior BJP leader and Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on Monday accused Delhi's ruling Aam Aadmi Party of not implementing the central government's schemes in the national capital.

Addressing an election rally in Moti Bagh, he also sought to allay fears over the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), assuring the gathering that the legislation will not take away anyone's citizenship.

Singh alleged that the Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal-led Delhi government did not do anything in the last five years.

The AAP had promised to add 5,000 buses to the fleet of the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), but instead the number has come down by 1,000, he claimed.

The Union minister said the AAP dispensation did not implement central schemes in Delhi fearing that the popularity of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government will grow among Delhiites.

Pension schemes and the Centre's flagship health insurance scheme, Ayushman Bharat Yojana, are some of those that the Kejriwal government did not allow to be implemented in Delhi.

On the anti-CAA protests, Singh said that the opposition parties have been spreading "lies" about amended citizenship law and the National Population Register (NPR).

"The CAA will not take away anyone's citizenship. The opposition parties are spreading lies about the CAA. There should be no such politics over this. Some people are trying to write the history of the country with the ink of hatred," he said.

The culture of India is such that it considers the entire world one family, he said.

Delhi goes to polls on February 8. The results will be declared on February 11.

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, Jun 29: A disturbing video of a Covid-19 patient, speaking his last words, after his oxygen supply was allegedly cut off, has surfaced on social media. The patient reportedly died after indicating that the oxygen supply to him was cut off despite his requests.

The video has a 35-year-old Covid-19 patient bidding good-bye to his family, from a government hospital bed in Hyderabad. The patient Ravi Kumar can be seen speaking out against the negligence of of the medical staff in providing ventilator support to him when he needed it the most.

The video has led to social media outrage as it attracted public attention towards plight of patients in government hospitals

"I am not able to breathe, I pleaded but they did not continue oxygen for the last three hours. I am not able to breathe anymore daddy, it's like my heart has stopped, Bye daddy. Bye to all, daddy," these were apparently the final words of the man, who spoke in his local dialect, and shared on social media.

Several reports have claimed that the man had been admitted to government Chest hospital, after several private hospitals refused to admit him. His ventilator support was allegedly taken off in the hospital, after which he recorded the video message.

The victim’s family shared the video message for the public to know of the negligence.

Reports have it that Ravi’s covid-19 report, which testes positive, was given to family a day after his death, when 30 of his family members performed the final rites, thus making all of them vulnerable to the virus. Ravi’s father has alleged that the test was done on June 24 and Ravi died on June 26, while the report was given to them on June 27.