Lotus will now bloom in Karnataka, Kerala, says Yogi Adityanath

Mumbai, Jan 29: Unfazed by his suspension from flying on Tuesday, stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra on Wednesday claimed that he once again approached television journalist Arnab Goswami, who he said was his co-passenger on a flight from Lucknow, for an "honest discussion" but was turned away.

Kamra tweeted in the morning that "Arnab Goswami was again travelling in his flight while returning from Lucknow". "I again asked him politely if he wants to have a honest discussion he with his verbal arrogant hand jester he asked me to move away & I did that (sic)," he tweeted.

The comedian was suspended from flying by IndiGo and Air India on Tuesday after he allegedly heckled Goswami aboard a Mumbai-Lucknow plane and posted a video clip on his Twitter handle.

FYI - Arnab Goswami was in my
flight again this morning while returning from lucknow... I again asked him politely if he wants to have a honest discussion he with his verbal arrogant hand jester he asked me to move away & I did that...

— Kunal Kamra (@kunalkamra88) January 29, 2020

While IndiGo suspended Kamra from flying with it for a period of six months, Air India banned him until further notice.

In a statement released on Twitter after he posted the video, Kamra said he did "exactly what Republic TV journalists do to people in their private/public spaces". Kamra stated he had not done anything criminal by allegedly heckling Goswami.

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.

Lucknow, Mar 3: Two days after wife of Kafeel Khan, who is booked under the National Security Act, alleged that her husband faced a threat to life in Mathura jail, where he is lodged for anti-CAA protests, the District Magistrate claimed that Khan was 'fully secure' in the jail.

"Kafeel Khan, who has been booked under the National Security Act (NSA) for alleged inflammatory statements during an anti-CAA protest in Aligarh, is absolutely fine and fully secure in Mathura jail. Allegations of 'inhuman' treatment being meted out to him are baseless," Mathura District Magistrate Sarvagya Ram Mishra said on Monday.

Also Read: Kafeel Khan’s wife fears threat to his life
Senior Superintendent of Mathura district prison, Shailendra Maitrey, said that Khan's condition is being monitored every half an hour and the report is written in the gate book. He said, his ECG is normal and blood pressure was also in control.

He said that Khan was demanding checkup from a cardiologist.

"Since no specialist is available in the government sector here, his request could not be complied with. However, the jail authorities have sent his request to chief medical officer and have asked him to make a specialist available," the jail official said.

He said Khan is in barrack, which is fully ventilated, and he shares it with 50-60 'good behaviour' prisoners.

It may be recalled that in a letter to the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court, Additional Chief Secretary (Home), and Director General (Jail), Shabista Khan, wife of the jailed doctor, had alleged that her husband was being treated inhumanely in the jail.

She feared that an attempt could be made on her husband's life inside the jail. She had demanded adequate security for him and had urged that her husband should be kept away from active criminals lodged in the jail.

Khan was booked by Aligarh police on December 13 for delivering a provocative speech in Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) during an anti-CAA protest in the campus, a day earlier, and was arrested from Mumbai airport on January 29 by Uttar Pradesh special task force.

The Aligarh police had slapped the stringent National Security Act (NSA) against Khan on February 13 night, hours before he was expected to walk free from the Mathura jail, after he was granted bail by Aligarh's chief judicial magistrate on February 10.