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

Agencies
November 23, 2018

Ayodhya, Nov 23: In what could stir up a possible controversy, Shiv Sena Member of Parliament Sanjay Raut on Friday implied that it would not take long to bring an ordinance for construction of Ram Temple in Ayodhya when it took only 17 minutes for the Ram bhakts (devotees) to demolish Babri Masjid.

Raut told media, “It took only around 17 minutes for us – the Ram bhakts – to destroy the Babri Masjid. So, how long will it take to bring an ordinance? From Rashtrapati Bhawan to Uttar Pradesh’s Vidhan Sabha, it is the Bharatiya Janata Party that is in power. In Rajya Sabha also there are many members who will support Ram Mandir from across party lines. Whoever opposes its construction will not be able to survive in peace in the country.”

A big push for Temple construction came on Tuesday when a litigant Mohammad Iqbal Ansari, in the Babri Masjid case, said that he does not have any objection to an ordinance for Ram Temple construction.

On October 29, the Supreme Court had adjourned the title suit till January 2019 to fix the date of hearing in the matter. The top court adjourned the matter which challenged the Allahabad High Court ruling of 2010.

The Court in its 2010 verdict had suggested a division of the disputed land in Ayodhya into three parts – one for each of the parties – the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

On December 6, 1992, the Babri Masjid which was built by Mughal emperor Babur in Ayodhya in 1528, was razed to the ground allegedly by Hindu activists who claimed that the mosque was constructed after demolishing a Ram Temple that originally stood there.

Comments

GOD
 - 
Saturday, 24 Nov 2018

RAMA cant even save his wife sita while kidnapping, than what GOD you are discussing about.

 

first learn the real meaning for GOD, then you can build temple or mosque

 

 

 

 

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
February 19,2020

London, Feb 19: Indian universities had a good performance year within the emerging economies of the world as a record 11 made it to the top 100 Times Higher Education's (THE) Emerging Economies University Rankings 2020.

Only China has more universities than India in the top 100 at 30 from a total of 47 countries and territories included in the analysis released in London on Tuesday evening.

A total of 56 Indian universities appear in the full ranking of a total of 533 universities across emerging economies of the world.

The Indian Institute of Science (IISc), ranked 16th, is India’s top-ranked institution followed by the Indian Institute of Technologies (IITs).

"There has long been a debate about the success of Indian universities in world rankings, and for too long they have been seen as underperforming on the global stage," notes Phil Baty, Chief Knowledge Officer for the THE.

"The Emerging Economies University Rankings 2020 suggests that real progress is being made by a number of institutions in a number of metrics across our robust methodology, and could mark an exciting turning point for Indian higher education, enabled in part by the Institutes of Eminence scheme," he said.

The Indian government’s Institutes of Eminence scheme was established in 2017 and one of its participating universities, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, has entered the top 100 for the first time, moving up a huge 51 places from joint 141st in 2019.

The other universities included in the Institutes of Eminence scheme that appear in the top 100 mark the biggest improvers in the ranking with IIT Kharagpur moving up 23 places to 32nd, IIT Delhi improving by 28 places to joint 38th and IIT Madras climbing 12 places to joint 63rd.

The Institutes of Eminence scheme provides participating universities with government funding and greater autonomy with the aim of moving them into the top 100 of the world university rankings, including Times Higher Education’s World University Ranking, over time.

The expectation is that this will be achieved through a number of changes including an increase in foreign students and staff, offering online courses and encouraging academic collaboration with other top universities around the world.

This year marks only the second time that 11 Indian institutions have held top 100 positions since the ranking began in 2014, when much fewer universities took part in the ranking globally.

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
July 16,2020

New Delhi, Jul 16: With the highest single-day spike of 32,695 cases and 606 deaths reported in the last 24 hours, India's COVID-19 tally on Thursday reached 9,68,876, informed the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on Thursday.

The total number of COVID-19 cases includes 3,31,146 active cases, 6,12,815 cured/discharged/migrated and 24,915 deaths.

As per the Ministry, Maharashtra -- the worst-affected state from the infection -- has a total of 2,75,640 COVID-19 cases and 10,928 fatalities. While Tamil Nadu has a tally of 1,51,820 cases and 2,167 deaths due to COVID-19.

Delhi has reported a total of 1,16,993 cases and 3,487 deaths due to COVID-19.

Meanwhile, as per the information provided by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), 1,27,39,490 samples have been tested for COVID-19 till 15th July, of these 3,26,826 samples were tested yesterday.

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.