Illegal migrants are SP, BSP vote bank: Amit Shah

Agencies
February 9, 2019

Maharajganj/Jaunpur, Feb 9: BJP president Amit Shah on Friday called illegal migrants a vote bank of the SP and the BSP and also targeted the opposition over the issues of triple talaq and the Ayodhya dispute.

He said “every single intruder” will be sent home if the BJP returns to power.

Shah said the party remained committed to the construction of the Ram temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya, and challenged the opposition parties to spell out their own stands on the issue.

He was addressing booth-level party workers in Maharajganj and later in Jaunpur, in a series of such interactions in the run-up to the Lok Sabha elections.

In Jaunpur, he brought up the surgical strike against militant camps in Pakistan-held territory in 2016.

"When army personnel came back after avenging the death of their colleagues, there was a major change globally as there are only two countries which have avenged the death of their army personnel -- Israel and United States,” he said.

“India was included in that category because of Prime Minister Narendra Modi," he said.

Raising the issue of illegal migrants from Bangladesh, he said in Maharajganj, "Should the intruders not be thrown out of the country?”

He said the recent exercise on the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam had identified 40 lakh such people, “and the process of throwing them out has started”.

"If UP elects the Narendra Modi government again in 2019, from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, from Assam to Gujarat, from Uttar Pradesh to Uttarakhand, every single intruder will be ousted,” he said.

"These intruders may be a vote bank for "bua” and “bhatija”,” Shah said, referring to alliance partners Bahujan Samaj Party chief Mayawati and Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav. “For us, it is national security that is most important."

He referred to Congress women wing chief Sushmita Dev remark Thursday that the party will scrap the triple talaq law if it comes to power, and asked, "Should Muslim women and girls not get their rights?”

“Every woman in the country has the right to her dignity and Modi will give this right to Muslim women as well," Shah said.

The Bharatiya Janata Party chief said all BJP workers want to know the party's stand on the Ram temple.

"I want to make it clear that the BJP is committed to building a grand Ram temple at the same place at the earliest," he said.

He charged that the Congress wanted the Ayodhya land case taken up only after the elections.

He said the faith of crores of people was attached to the case, and asked the Congress, “Whom do you want to appease?"

"I have said here that the BJP is committed to the Ram temple's construction, but I want to ask bua-bhatija and Rahul baba to clear their parties' stand on it,” he said, throwing a challenge at UP's opposition alliance and the Congress.

“If they do not want it, they should clearly tell the people. Whatever their stand is, the BJP will get a grand temple built there," he said.

Shah recalled that the Centre has moved the Supreme Court seeking permission to return the uncontested land adjacent to the disputed site to its original owners.

He referred to Congress women wing chief Sushmita Dev remark Thursday that the party will scrap the triple talaq law if it comes to power.

"Should Muslim women and girls not get their rights?” he said.

“Every woman in the country has the right to her dignity and Modi will give this right to Muslim women as well," Shah said.

Comments

Haamid
 - 
Saturday, 9 Feb 2019

Criminal,one of the worst politican of our country

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.
News Network
April 28,2020

New Delhi, Apr 28: With 1,594 new cases of COVID-19 reported in the last 24 hours and 51 deaths, India's total count of coronavirus cases surged to 29,974, said the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on Tuesday.

The total cases are inclusive of 7,026 cured and discharged patients, one migrated and 937 deaths.

At present, there are 22,010 active COVID-19 cases in the country.

Addressing a press conference here, Lav Agarwal, Joint Secretary, Union Health and Family Welfare Ministry, said that in the last 28 days, 17 districts have had no new Covid-19 cases. "This means we need to maintain constant vigil," he added.

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
January 28,2020

Kolkata, Jan 28: West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee Tuesday said she is ready for talks with Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the issue of Citizenship Amendment Act but the Centre has to first withdraw the contentious law.

Banerjee said protesting against the decisions of the centre doesn't make opposition parties anti-national and iterated that she will not implement CAA, NRC or NPR in the state.

"It is good that the prime minister is ready for talks but the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) must be revoked first. They (Centre) did not call an all-party meeting before taking a decision on Kashmir and CAA.

"We are ready for talks but first withdraw this Citizenship Amendment Act," Banerjee, a staunch critic of the BJP, said addressing a protest programme against CAA through paintings.

The West Bengal assembly had on Monday passed a resolution against the CAA to become the fourth state after Kerala, Punjab and Rajasthan, to do so. The state assembly had on September 6, 2019, passed a resolution against the NRC.

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.