Indian Air Force jets crossed LoC, claims Pakistan

Agencies
February 26, 2019

Islamabad, Feb 26: Pakistan on Tuesday claimed that the Indian Air Force jets crossed the Line of Control (LoC), following which the former "scrambled" immediately.

The claim comes in the wake of tense relations between the two countries in the aftermath of the Pulwama terror attack, claimed by Pakistan-based outfit Jaish-e-Mohammed.

"Indian Air Force violated Line of Control (LoC). Pakistan Air Force immediately scrambled. Indian aircrafts gone back. Details to follow (sic)," the Spokesperson for the Pakistan Armed Forces, Major General Asif Ghafoor, tweeted on Tuesday.

"Indian aircrafts’ intrusion across LOC in Muzafarabad Sector within AJ&K was 3-4 miles. Under forced hasty withdrawal aircrafts released payload which had free fall in open area. No infrastructure got hit, no casualties. Technical details and other important information to follow," he added.

Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Qamar Jawed Bajwa had visited Pakistani troops deployed at the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir and instructed them to "be ready to face any eventuality," on Friday.

Bajwa had also visited the Headquarters Rawalpindi Corps on Monday, where he was updated on the operational situation and state of readiness along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), LoC and Working Boundary (WB).

He met with Chief of Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Mujahid Anwar Khan at the Air Headquarters in Rawalpindi where the two chiefs "deliberated on operational environment including threat and response" and "expressed satisfaction on readiness, coordination and synergy," according to Ghafoor.

Tensions are high between the neighbours following the ghastly February 14 attack in which a Jaish-e-Mohammed terrorist attacked a CRPF convoy in Jammu and Kashmir's Pulwama, leading to the death of 40 CRPF personnel.

The attack has since been widely condemned, with the United States telling Pakistan to cease providing support and a safe haven to terrorists and terrorist outfits.

Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan had earlier promised "action" if "actionable intelligence" was provided by India about its links to the Pulwama terror attack.

Khan had also warned of "retaliation, without even thinking" if any kind of military action is launched by India.

In response, India dubbed Khan's statement as "a lame excuse," asking him to stop misleading the international community.

Comments

Indian
 - 
Tuesday, 26 Feb 2019

it's just a trailer, picture Abhi baakhi he dost, just wait and watch, you might have no idea what can Indian army do with you.

 

Insha Allah history will repeat again.

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
January 30,2020

Mumbai, Jan 30: The Uttar Pradesh Special Task Force (STF) has arrested Dr Kafeel Khan from Mumbai airport for allegedly making inflammatory statements at AMU during protests against the Citizenship Amendments Act (CAA) last month, officials said.

Khan was arrested on Wednesday night with assistance from Mumbai Police at the airport when he arrived in the city to attend anti-CAA protests, an official said.

"Officials of the UP STF arrested Dr Kafeel Khan in a case which was registered at Civil Lines Police Station under section 153 A (promoting enmity between different groups) of IPC. Our police team helped our UP counterparts on their request," said an official from Mumbai Police.

He claimed that Khan had made inflammatory statements on December 12 last year during the protest near Bab e Syed Gate outside the Aligarh Muslim University in front of more than 600 students.

The official also alleged that the Gorakhpur doctor had made objectionable comments against Union Home Minister Amit Shah.

The FIR against Khan mentions that Swaraj India's president Yogendra Yadav was also present during the speech at AMU.

Following the arrest in the case, Khan was taken to the Sahar Police Station and after completing formalities he will be taken to UP on transit remand, the official said.

Khan, a paediatrician, had come to the limelight in 2017 when a controversy broke out after the death of over 60 children in less than a week at the BRD Medical College in Gorakhpur, UP.

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.
Agencies
May 10,2020

New Delhi, May 10: Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Saturday demanded that Prime Minister Narendra Modi ensured audit of donations made to the PM-CARES Fund, and to share the details and the money spent with the people.

"The PM-CARES Fund has received huge contributions from PSUs and major public utilities like the Railways. It's important that the Prime Minister ensure the fund is audited and that the record of money received and spent is available to the public," he tweeted.

The #PmCares fund has received huge contributions from PSUs & major public utilities like the Railways.

It’s important that PM ensures the fund is audited & that the record of money received and spent is available to the public.

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) May 9, 2020
His remarks came amid reports that the central government is accumulating a huge sum of money in the Prime Minister's Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund set up as a corpus to fight novel coronavirus and that the amount spent will not be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

The CAG office had clarified that since the fund is based on donations, it has no right to audit a charitable organisation.

On Friday, Rahul Gandhi told the media that the PM-CARES Fund should be audited and people of the country should know about the donors and the donations made.

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.