Jamia Millia Islamia varsity’s new night out rule for girls sparks row

News Network
September 28, 2017

New Delhi, Sept 28: Amid an ongoing row over the alleged police crackdown on girls at the Banaras Hindu University (BHU), a fresh 'night out' rule framed by the Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) University for its female students has now triggered a fresh controversy.

The new rules framed by Delhi's central university requires its female students to ask their parents – preferably their fathers – to send a text message to the hostel warden approving their wards' plan to spend a night out.

However, no such rules exist for the male students of Jamia university, a DNA report said.

JMI's new 'night out' rules are applicable to all female students, including undergraduate and postgraduate ones, besides research scholars.

The rules require the parents to send a text message to the warden expressing their consent about their child's decision to spend the night out along with her name and her room number in the hostel.

It should also mention dates of absence from the hostel. Earlier, the residents of girls' hostels only had to get a form filled by their local guardians to get their hostel leaves approved.

Students said they have been asked to get permission preferably from the father as the university feels the mother can easily be "manipulated".

Agitated by the "regressive" move, a group of women from JMI's Hall of Girls Residence (Old) wrote to the Provost, saying the rule has been imposed without giving any prior intimation to them.

"We have been verbally told by the warden and the Provost about this new diktat, and no written notice or circular was issued by the university," said a third-year undergraduate student.

Azra Khursheed, the Provost of the Hall of Girls Residence (Old), however, termed it a "disciplinary" rule rather than a "discriminatory" one.

"There have been several instances of girls saying that they were going to visit their local guardians, but they actually went somewhere else. Keeping in mind their safety and security, the university has decided to keep their parents in the loop," she said.

Asked why such a rule is not there for the residents of boys' hostels, Khursheed said, "The safety of girls is our priority as boys can handle several situations on their own. Moreover, parents of girls trust us with their safety when they choose us over hundreds of PGs available around Jamia campus."

"The rule is a sheer violation of our privacy. We are capable of taking our own decisions. We don't need our parents' permission for each and everything," said a Ph.D. scholar.

Meanwhile, some residents of boys' hostels also criticised the move. "This is not the first time when different rules are being imposed on girls. The university has set a curfew limit of 8 pm for them even as there is no such limit for us. Unlike girls, we don't need to mark attendance every night," a first-year management student said.

Comments

Agreed. What you say is true. They will blame the university for "not taking care".

 

But, they should impose such restrictions on boys too. Although they are less vulnerable unlike females, there are chances of them falling into drugs, liquor, and othe rforms of corruption. This can also bring disrepute to the university, No.?

P
 - 
Thursday, 28 Sep 2017

Young minds never understand the wolves n sheeps skin... If something gone wrong (i hope not)  the parents , the authorities, the society will all blame the university for not taking care .

 

This is the reality...

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.
Agencies
July 19,2020

New Delhi, Jul 19: Amid the political firestorm in Rajasthan following Sachin Pilot's rebellion, senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal on Sunday called for amending the anti-defection law to ban all defectors from holding public office for five years and fighting the next election.

Sibal also said that the "antibodies" against the "virus of corrupt means" to topple elected governments lie in amending the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution (anti-defection law).

His attack comes in the wake of Pilot's open rebellion against the Ashok Gehlot government, which has been on shaky ground since, with at least 18 legislators backing the rebel leader.

Pilot was sacked as deputy chief minister and the state Congress chief earlier this week.

The Congress has accused the BJP of making efforts to topple the Gehlot government by indulging in horse-trading.

"Need for Vaccine: Virus of 'corrupt means' to topple elected governments has spread through a 'Wuhan like facility' in Delhi," Sibal tweeted, in an apparent swipe at the BJP.

"Its 'antibodies' lie in amending the Tenth Schedule. Ban all defectors from: Holding public office for five years, fighting the next election," he said.

Taking a swipe at Pilot over his claim that he is not joining the BJP, Sibal on Thursday had asked what happens to his "ghar wapsi" and whether Rajasthan's dissident legislators are vacationing in Haryana under the "watchful eye" of the saffron party.

In the house of 200, the Congress has 107 MLAs, including the 19 dissidents who have been issued notices of disqualification by the speaker and they have challenged them in the high court.

The Congress has maintained the claim that the Gehlot government has the support of 109 MLAs, including the two BTP MLAs.

Comments

abdulkarim bakhar
 - 
Sunday, 19 Jul 2020

I FULLY AGREE WITH MR. KAPIL SIBAL.  IN FACT, IT IS NEED OF THE HOUR TO SAVE OUR DEMOCRACY.

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
July 2,2020

New Delhi, Jul 2: In the midst of India's tense border standoff with China, the defence ministry on Thursday approved procurement of a number of frontline fighter jets, missile systems and other platforms at a cost of Rs 38,900 crore to bolster the combat capability of the armed forces, officials said.

They said 21 MiG-29 fighter jets are being bought from Russia while 12 Su-30 MKI aircraft will be procured from Russia. The ministry has also approved a separate proposal to upgrade existing 59 MiG-29 aircraft.

The decisions were taken at a meeting of the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) chaired by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh.

The procurement of 21 MiG-29 and upgrading of the existing fleet of MiG-29 are estimated to cost the government Rs 7,418 crore while purchase of 12 new Su-30 MKI from the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd will be made at a cost of Rs 10,730 crore, the officials said.

The DAC also approved procurement of long-range land-attack cruise missile systems with a range of 1,000 KM and Astra Missiles for Navy and Air Force.

The officials said cost of these design and development proposals is in the range of Rs 20,400 crore.

"While acquisition of Pinaka missile systems will enable raising additional regiments over and above the ones already inducted, addition of long-range land attack missile systems having a firing range of 1000 KM to the existing arsenal will bolster the attack capabilities of the Navy and the Air Force," said a defence ministry official.

"Similarly induction of Astra Missiles having beyond visual range capability will serve as a force multiplier and immensely add to the strike capability of the Indian Navy and the Indian Air Force," he 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.