India, Switzerland deny sharing 'black money' details

New Delhi, May 4: Rebutting the Congress' criticism, the BJP said on Monday that the railways has subsidised 85 per cent of ticket fare for special trains being run for migrant workers and the state governments have to pay the remaining 15 per cent.

The ruling party also accused the Congress of promoting indiscriminate movement of people which, it said, would lead to "faster spread" of coronavirus infection "just like we saw in Italy", and asked if this is what Sonia Gandhi wants.

The counter-charge from BJP leaders, including its spokesperson Sambit Patra and information technology department in-charge Amit Malviya, came after Congress president Sonia Gandhi hit out at the central government for making migrants pay for their train fare and asked her party's state units to pick the tab.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi also took a swipe at the railways, saying, on one hand, it is seeking ticket fare from people stranded in various states while on the other it is donating Rs 151 crore to the PM-CARES Fund.

Responding to him, Patra said, "Rahul Gandhi ji, I have attached guidelines of MHA which clearly state that 'No tickets to be sold at any station'. Railways has subsidised 85% & state govt to pay 15%. The state govt can pay for the tickets (Madhya Pradesh's BJP govt is paying). Ask Cong state govts to follow suit," Patra tweeted.

The BJP leader further clarified that for each 'Shramik Express', special trains being run for migrants to take them back to their native places during the lockdown, about 1,200 tickets to the destination are handed by the railways to the state government concerned.

State governments are supposed to clear the ticket price and hand over the tickets to workers, he said.

He said the BJP government in Madhya Pradesh is doing so and asked Rahul Gandhi to tell the Congress-ruled states to follow suit.

Hitting out at Sonia Gandhi, Malviya tweeted, "Congress is obviously upset at how well India has handled Covid. They would have ideally wanted a lot more people to suffer and die. Promoting indiscriminate movement of people would lead to faster spread of infection, just like we saw in Italy. Is this what Sonia Gandhi wants?"

BJP MP Subramanian Swamy claimed that migrant workers returning home will not have to pay money as the rail travel will be free from now onwards.

"Talked to Piyush Goyal office. Govt will pay 85% and State Govt 15%. Migrant labour will go free. Ministry will clarify with an official statement," he tweeted.

BJP Congress Coronavirus COVID-19 Coronavirus lockdown Italy Sonia Gandhi Rahul Gandhi Sambit Patra Amit Malviya Subramanian Swamy Piyush Goyal

New Delhi, May 10: The Delhi government has asked district magistrates to release 2,446 Tablighi Jamaat members from quarantine centres and ensure that they do not stay in any other place except their homes.

The district magistrates will explore the possibility of sending those Tablighi members, who belong to other states, in buses to their designated places in accordance with social distancing norms and other protocols, DDMA Special CEO K S Meena said in a letter to deputy commissioners (administration).

As man as 567 foreign attendees of the congregation held in Delhi's Nizamuddin area in March, will be handed over to the police, Meena said.

"They (foreign Jamaat attendees) will be handed over to police in connection with several violations like visa violation," a government official said on Saturday.

Delhi Home Minister Satyendar Jain had recently ordered the release of Tablighi members who have completed their required quarantine period in centres and tested negative for COVID-19.

"Out of such people belonging to Delhi, who could be released as per prescribed guidelines should be issued passes to travel from the quarantine centres.

"Under no circumstances, the aforesaid persons should be allowed to stay in any other places including mosques," Meena said in the letter.

In respect of those Tablighi members belonging to other states, it should be ensured by the nodal officer and the area ACP that such people reach their place of residence, he also said.

"The DC should also inform the respective resident commissioner of their states in respect of each and every movement of such persons from Delhi," the Delhi Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) Special CEO said.

Thousands of Tablighi Jamaat members had been taken out of its Markaz (centre) in Nizamuddin, where they had gathered for a religious congregation, and quarantined as the area became a major hotspot after a number of members tested positive for coronavirus.

On March 31, the Delhi Police's Crime Branch had lodged an FIR against seven people, including Maulana Saad Kandhalvi, on a complaint by Station House Officer, Nizamuddin, for holding the congregation.

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.