‘I was raped for 8 months; baba supplied school girls to politicians’

New Delhi, Jan 18: Lieutenant Governor (LG) Anil Baijal has granted the power of detaining authority to the Delhi Police Commissioner under the National Security Act (NSA), according to a notification. The NSA allows preventive detention of an individual for months if the authorities feel that the individual is a threat to the national security, and law and order, sources said.

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of section 3, read with clause (c) of Section 2 of the National Security Act, 1980, the Lt Governor is pleased to direct that during the period January 19 to April 18, the Delhi Police Commissioner may also exercise the powers of detaining authority under sub-section (2) of the section 3 of the aforesaid Act, the notification stated.

The notification has been issued on January 10 following the approval of the LG.

It comes at a time when the national capital has been witnessing a number of protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

However, the Delhi Police said it is a routine order that has been issued in every quarter and has nothing to do with the current situation.

Riyadh, May 13: Saudi Arabia’s cabinet on Tuesday urged oil-producing nations not only to adhere to agreed cuts to production, but further reduce output to help restore balance in global oil markets, state news agency SPA reported.

In issuing the call to OPEC+, which includes members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries plus Russia and other nations, ministers said the Kingdom is committed to supporting the stability of global oil markets.

After the meeting, acting Minister of Media Majed Al-Qasabi said that in addition to its commitment to the OPEC+ agreement, the Kingdom will voluntarily reduce output by an additional 1 million barrels a day in June. It will also try to implement additional cuts this month, with the consent of its customers, he added.

The cabinet said the Saudi initiatives aim to encourage other countries, whether they have signed up to the OPEC+ agreement or not, to adhere to its reduced rates and to cut output even further to help stabilize global oil markets.

During the cabinet meeting, which was conducted using video conferencing, King Salman also briefed ministers on his recent telephone conversation with US President Donald Trump. He said they affirmed the historical and strategic relationship between the two countries and their commitment to the continuation of joint efforts to enhance security and stability in the region.

Ministers were then updated on the latest developments in the corona virus crisis, including the steps being taken locally and internationally to control it and safeguard public health, the number of cases in the Kingdom and the care being provided to those who are infected. They also reviewed details of the active screening and testing programs in all parts of the country, which have helped to keep the number of deaths relatively low compared to global rates.

The cabinet praised the efforts being made by government officials to combat the pandemic, and stressed that citizens and expatriates must abide by the precautionary and preventive measures introduced to prevent the spread of the virus.

Ministers described the decision by Saudi Arabia to host the Pledging Event for the Humanitarian Crisis in Yemen 2020 on June 2 as an extension of the Kingdom’s humanitarian and development contribution, which reflects its pioneering role in supporting its neighbor.

The cabinet also welcomed the formation of the new government in Iraq and reiterated Saudi Arabia’s support for the nation and its readiness to work with the new administration to strengthen relations and enhance security and stability in the region.

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.