Irfan, Rakesh Babu sent home from CWG for breach of No Needle Policy

Aboard Air Force One, Jan 6: US President Donald Trump threatened sanctions against Baghdad on Sunday after Iraq's parliament called on US troops to leave the country, and the president said if troops did leave, Baghdad would have to pay Washington for the cost of the air base there.

"We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that's there. It cost billions of dollars to build, long before my time. We're not leaving unless they pay us back for it," Trump told reporters on Air Force One.

Trump said that if Iraq asked US forces to leave and it was not done on a friendly basis, "we will charge them sanctions like they've never seen before ever. It'll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame."

New Delhi, Jan 18: There was not much rustiness but just the initial nervousness, which a “pleasantly surprised” Sania Mirza shook off to win a title in her first tournament in 27 months, capping off her comeback from a maternity leave in style.

Partnering Ukraine's Nadiia Kichenov, the trailblazing Indian tennis player annexed the Hobart International trophy with a straight sets win over second seed Chinese pair of Shuai Peng and Shuai Zhang.

She worked hard to get into shape but the way she moved, it seemed Sania was never away from the courts.

“It's something I did not expect totally, so to say, but I am excited to be able to do this in my first tournament on comeback," Sania told PTI in an exclusive interview from Melbourne.

“I honestly thought I would be a bit more rustier than I was. I was pleasantly surprised that I was not. But there are things I can improve and that is what makes a champion. You always want to get better in what you are doing, no matter how well you do."

The 33-year-old winner of six Grand Slam titles said she played without pressure, and insisted there was no secret to the swift success on comeback.

“There is no key, I wish I knew, there was one key to winning. I just enjoyed my game. You have to work hard, play your game. I was playing with a new partner, new gear after two-and-a-half years. There was no pressure and no expectations.

"The first match was the only one when I felt a bit nervous because I did not know how my body would react and how I would play. That match was difficult but it set the tone and momentum. I was happy to come though that one and after that things kept getting better and better," she said.

Sania said her body has certainly changed after giving birth to son Izhaan but she did not have to tweak her post-match recovery process much.

“It does change. I was dealing with a calf injury, from last month and I aggravated a bit today. I am still icing it as we speak but it should not be serious.

“The body is a lot different now. It recovers different. But recovery (process) has not changed so much, it's similar."

Asked if she could go for her shots as she was doing before the break, she said, “I was able to do enough, I can improve, no matter how I play."

"My serve was decent but I can improve. I the first match I was not serving that well and was not returning well on important points but by the time I was playing the final, I was doing both of those little better. It is a process, it does not happen overnight. It's something will keep working on."

Serena Williams set an example in 2018 when she came out playing highly competitive tennis after giving birth to her daughter Olympia. There are other tennis moms like Victoria Azrenka and Evgeniya Rodina.

Sania said she did not seek any input from tennis moms but their presence on the Tour is inspiring enough.

“I did not speak to anyone but it is inspiring to see so many moms around, playing well in different sports."

Sania will play the Australian Open mixed doubles with compatriot Rohan Bopnna after her original first-choice Rajeev Ram opted out due to health reasons.

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.