India set to buy fighter jets, missile systems, weapons worth Rs 38,900-cr from Russia

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, Feb 5: Over five crore farmers were yet to get the third instalment of money under the Centre's ambitious PM-Kisan scheme, aimed at providing direct support of Rs 6,000 annually to them, according to the latest Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare data.

The total amount of the scheme, which came into effect on December 1, 2018, is to be paid in three equal instalments of Rs 2,000 every four months.

The data showed about 2.51 crore farmers have not got even the second instalment and 5.16 crore of them were yet to get the third instalment.

Over 9 crore farmers have registered themselves under the scheme between December 2018 and November 2019, it said.

Of these, 7.62 crore or 84 per cent of farmers have received the first instalment.

The money through the second instalment was given to nearly 6.5 crore farmers and the amount under the third instalment was given to 3.85 crore beneficiaries, according to the data received in response to an RTI query filed by this PTI journalist.

The agriculture ministry, in its response, gave three sets of data mentioning the benefits given to farmers under the scheme between December 2018 and November 2019.

It said 4.74 crore farmers were registered between December 2018 and March 2019.

Of them, 4.22 crore received the first instalment, 4.02 crore the second and 3.85 crore the third.

There was no mention why nearly 50 lakh, 70 lakh and 90 lakh registered farmers during this period did not get the first, second and third instalment respectively.

There was no registered beneficiary in West Bengal and Sikkim, hence no amount was disbursed during this period, according to the data.

Giving details of the 3.08 crore farmers registered between April and July last year, it said 2.66 crore and 2.47 crore beneficiaries have got their first and second instalments respectively.

The RTI reply did no mention why around 40 lakh and 61 lakh registered farmers during this period did not get their first and second instalment respectively.

"The beneficiaries are eligible for the instalment for the period in which he/she gets registered and subsequent periods, thereafter. Therefore, the third instalment is not due for the beneficiaries registered in the period April 2019-July 2019," the ministry said.

There was no registered beneficiary during this period in West Bengal, Punjab and Chandigarh and therefore nobody was paid first and second instalments.

The ministry said around 1.19 crore beneficiaries were registered between August and November 30, 2019, of these nearly 73.66 lakh farmers have been given the first instalment.

There was no mention of payment of first instalment to over 45 lakh eligible beneficiaries during the period.

"The beneficiaries are eligible for the instalment for the period in which he/she gets registered and subsequent periods, thereafter. Therefore, the second and third instalments are not due for the beneficiaries registered in the period August 2019 to November 2019," it said.

The ministry was asked to provide the total number of farmers, state-wise, and the amount received by them under the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi or PM-Kisan scheme.

"PM-Kisan Samman Nidhi scheme has been implemented from December 1, 2018. It is stated that PM-Kisan is a continuous and ongoing scheme, in which the financial benefits are transferred to the bank accounts of the identified beneficiaries as and when their correct and verified data is uploaded by the concerned states/union territories on PM-Kisan web portal," the ministry said in the RTI response vide its letter dated December 26, 2019.

The data of beneficiaries so uploaded by them undergoes a multi-level verification, including by banks, and only then the amount is released to the beneficiary, it said, adding that www.pmkisan.gov.in website can be accessed to get more details on the operational guidelines of the scheme.

According to the data updated on the website on February 3, around 8.82 crore farmers have been registered and 8.41 crore have received the first installment, 7.56 crore the second instalment, 6.19 crore the third and 3.03 crore have received the fourth installment.

In Assam, out of 16.97 lakh farmers registered during this period, 14.02 lakh got the first instalment, 13.72 lakh received the second and 9.87 lakh the third.

Of the 42.34 lakh registered beneficiaries in Maharashtra, 36.98 lakh got the first instalment, 31.53 lakh the second and 27.67 lakh got the third instalment.

As many as 23.83 lakh farmers in Kerala received their first instalment, 18.79 lakh got the second and 18.43 lakh the third. A total of 26.13 lakh beneficiaries were registered in the state between December 2018 and March 2019.

There was no beneficiary registered during the period from West Bengal, which has refused to implement the scheme, according to the ministry's response.

In Uttar Pradesh, nearly 9.57 lakh out of 19.64 lakh farmers have got the first instalment. In Gujarat, nearly 1.22 lakh out of 1.98 lakh registered farmers got the first instalment.

Around 9.78 lakh farmers out of the 17.18 lakh registered beneficiaries have received the first instalment in Madhya Pradesh. In Odisha, only 5,507 farmers out of 5.6 lakh registered farmers have got the first instalment, the ministry said.

None of the 7,326 farmers registered in Sikkim was paid the first instalment, according to the ministry's reply. In Delhi, 1,447 farmers out of 1,734 have got the first instalment.

Ayodhya, Feb 18: A senior Supreme Court lawyer has written to the Ram temple trust on behalf of a group of Muslims in Ayodhya, asking that five acres of land around the demolished Babri Masjid where a graveyard is situated be spared for the sake of 'sanatan dharma'.

The letter, written by advocate M R Shamshad, is addressed to all 10 trustees of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teertha Kshetra.

Shamshad said according to Muslims, there is a graveyard known as 'Ganj Shahidan' around the demolished Babri Masjid where 75 Muslims who lost their lives in the 1885 riots in Ayodhya were buried.

"There is a mention of this in Faizabad Gazetteer also," he said.

"The central government has not considered the issue not using the grave-yard of Muslims for constructing the grand temple of Lord Ram. It has violated 'dharma'," the letter stated.

"In view of religious scriptures of 'sanatan dharma', you need to consider whether the temple of Lord Ram can have foundation on the graves of Muslims? This is a decision that the management of the trust has to take," it said.

"With all humility and respect to Lord Ram, I request you, not to use the land of about four to five acres in which the graves of Muslims are there around the demolished mosque," the letter added.