It took us only 17 mins to demolish Babri Masjid: Sanjay Raut

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.

Jehanabad, Jan 28: Anti-CAA activist Sharjeel Imam, who was on the run after sedition charges were slapped against him for allegedly making inflammatory statements, was arrested from Bihar's Jehanabad district on Tuesday, the state's police chief Gupteshwar Pandey said.

The JNU scholar was wanted by police of several states, including Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Delhi.

"Sharjeel Imam has been arrested from his native Kako village in Jehanabad," Bihar's director-general of police Gupteshwar Pandey said.

Earlier in the day, Sharjeel Imam’s brother was picked up by police in a fresh attempt to trace the anti-CAA activist.

Police had raided his ancestral home on Sunday as it went hunting for him but Imam eluded the dragnet.

He is likely to be produced in a Bihar court where police will seek his remand for questioning. It is not yet clear whether he will be questioned in Bihar or taken to the national capital.

A graduate in computer science from IIT-Mumbai, Imam had shifted to Delhi to pursue research at the Centre for Historical Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University.

He was slapped with a sedition case after a video of his purported speech went viral on social media in which he was heard speaking about "cutting off" Assam and the Northeast from the rest of India.

"If five lakh people are organised, we can cut off the Northeast and India permanently. If not, at least for a month or half a month. Throw as much 'mawad' (variously described as pus or rubbish) on rail tracks and roads that it takes the Air Force one month to clear it.

"Cutting off Assam (from India) is our responsibility, only then they (the government) will listen to us. We know the condition of Muslims in Assam....they are being put into detention camps," he was shown in the video as saying.

Meanwhile, reacting to Imam's arrest, Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar said people have the right to protest but nobody can talk about the country's disintegration.

Kumar told reporters that police must have acted in accordance with law in arresting Imam and now the courts will take appropriate action.

Hubli, Jul 12: Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pralhad Joshi on Sunday said that the Monsoon session of Parliament will be held with the government ensuring all health precautions for COVID-19 are followed.

"Monsoon session (of Parliament) will certainly be held. The government will do all the formalities and take all precautions," the Parliamentary Affairs Minister told reporters here.

Earlier in March, the Parliament had passed 12 bills during the curtailed budget session with Lok Sabha passing 15 bills and Rajya Sabha 13.
During the session, 19 bills were introduced in the two Houses (18 in Lok Sabha and 1 in Rajya Sabha). The two Houses were adjourned sine die after completion of the budgetary process including passage of the Finance Bill.

The second part of the session was curtailed in view of the threat of the spread of coronavirus.
On June 1, Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu and Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla had held a detailed discussion on holding the ensuing monsoon session of Parliament in view of the coronavirus-induced norm of social distancing, sources said.

They said the leaders have taken note of reports suggesting that the fight against COVID-19 is likely to be a long haul.