IAF Sukhoi SU-30 MKI to carry Spice-2000 bombs used to decimate JeM camps in Pak

New Delhi, Mar 12: TMC MP Saugata Roy said Home Minister Amit Shah should resign for "failing" to control the riots in Delhi and demanded a judicial inquiry by a sitting Supreme Court judge.

Participating in a discussion on the violence in Delhi in Lok Sabha, Roy said the Delhi riots happened 72 years after Mahatma Gandhi was killed by a Hindu fanatic.

"Gandhiji has been murdered again in Delhi by, you know who," Roy said while addressing the Chair.

Taking on BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi for defending BJP leaders for their controversial remarks, which he claimed instigated the violence, Roy said he has seldom heard such a communal speech ever.

Dubbing the BJP MP as "Devil's Advocate", Roy said, "She spent five minutes defending the most hated man. May I quote (William) Shakespeare and call her the Devil's Advocate?...She is the best Devil's Advocate possible. She has also been an advocate for the Delhi Police which has shown total inaction and ineptness in this whole riot in Delhi."

Thereafter Roy trained his gun at Shah, who was present in the house while the TMC MP was speaking.

He said that when the riots started on February 24, Home Minister Shah was sitting in the front row at Motera Stadium (in Gujarat) welcoming US President Donald Trump.

"When Mr. Shah should have been in Delhi Police control room, he was welcoming Mr. Trump at Motera. There was no order to the police. Then on 25th, things went out of control. Armed mobs fought with each other on the streets of Delhi," Roy said.

Demanding resignation of Shah, Roy raised questions on NSA Ajit Doval's visit to the riots-affected areas on February 26 and asked what was the Home Minister doing.

"Is it NSA's business to control ordinary law and order situation? Why was the Home Minister absent in action? There is no explanation for the same," he said.

The TMC leader said he feels bad standing face-to-face with Shah.

"He is still young, he has a good future. He should acknowledge responsibility for his failure to control or stop Delhi riots and bring peace in three days. In the name of God, go and do not stay in the Home Minister's position," Roy said, adding he is the man who could not prevent riots in Delhi, at a place 10 kilometres away from the Home Ministry.

Roy demanded a judicial inquiry into the riots by a sitting Supreme Court judge and complete rehabilitation for all the riot victims.

United Nations, May 20: Highlighting India's long-standing history of promoting inclusive and peaceful societies, a top UN official on Tuesday voiced concern over incidents of "increased hate speech and discrimination" against minority communities in the country following the adoption of the Citizenship Amendment Act.

Under-Secretary-General and UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide Adama Dieng, however, welcomed Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s call for unity and brotherhood in the wake of the COVID19 pandemic.

Dieng said in a note to the media on Tuesday that he is "concerned over reports of increased hate speech and discrimination against minority communities in India" since the adoption of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in December 2019.

The Indian government has maintained that the CAA is an internal matter of the country and stressed that the goal is to protect the oppressed minorities of neighbouring countries.

The CAA, which was notified on January 10, grants Indian citizenship to non-Muslim minorities migrated to India from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh till December 31, 2014, following persecution over their faith.

"While the objective of the act, to provide protection to minority communities is commendable, it is concerning that this protection is not extended to all groups, including Muslims. This is contrary to India’s obligations under international human rights law, in particular on non-discrimination,” Dieng said.

The Special Adviser recognised "India’s long standing and well recognised history of promoting inclusive and peaceful societies, with respect for equality and principles of non-discrimination.”

He also welcomed recent statements by Prime Minister Modi that the COVID-19 pandemic “does not see race, religion, colour, caste, creed, language or border before striking and that our response and conduct...should attach primacy to unity and brotherhood.”

Dieng encouraged the Government of India to "continue to abide by this guidance by ensuring that national laws and policies follow international standards related to non-discrimination and to address and counter the rise of hate speech through messages of inclusion, respect for diversity and unity.”

He further reiterated that he would continue to follow developments and expressed his readiness to support initiatives to counter and address hate speech.

The hate speech and the dehumanisation of others goes against international human rights norms and values, he added.

“In these extraordinary times brought about by the COVID-19 crisis it is more important than ever that we stand united as one humanity, demonstrating unity and solidarity rather than division and hate,” he said.

Dieng also expressed concern over reports of violence during demonstrations against CAA in some regions of India.

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.