Lynching incidents shouldn't be politicised or given communal colour: Naqvi

Mumbai, May 17: Much on expected lines, Maharashtra, on Sunday, extended the coronavirus lockdown till May 31, in order to control the spread of the virus, under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, the state government said in a statement.

On Sunday afternoon, Chief Secretary Ajoy Mehta, in a notification said: "It is further directed that all earlier orders shall be aligned with this order and remain in force up to and inclusive of May 31, 2020. The calibrated phase-wise relaxation or lifting of lockdown orders will be notified in due course."

"Lockdown 3.0 ends today. Lockdown 4.0 will come into effect tomorrow and will be valid till May 31. There will be some relaxations in the fourth phase," he said.

"The green and orange zones will get more relaxations, in terms of starting more services. As of now only essential services are operational, he said.

Maharashtra has recorded 30,706 COVID-19 cases of which 22,479 are active. The death toll is 1135, while 7,088 patients have been discharged after recovery.

In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 2 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1898 and the powers, conferred under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, the Chairperson, State Executive Committee, issued direction to extend the lockdown till 31 May 2020 for containment of COVID-19 epidemic in the State and all Departments of Government of Maharashtra shall strictly implement the guidelines issued earlier form time to time, according to the statement.

Over the last two days,  Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray held a series of meetings with his ministerial colleagues, senior leaders including NCP supremo Sharad Pawar and top officials. 

Muzaffarpur, May 27: A toddler's vain attempt to wake up his dead mother from eternal sleep on a railway platform in Bihar's Muzaffarpur on Wednesday presented the most poignant picture of the massive migrant tragedy unfolding across several states.

A video tweeted by Sanjay Yadav, an aide to RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav, shows the child walking unsteadily up to his mother's body, tugging at the blanket placed over her, and when failing to wake her up, covering his own head with it.

छोटे बच्चे को नहीं मालूम कि जिस चादर के साथ वह खेल रहा है वह हमेशा के लिए मौत की गहरी नींद सो चुकी माँ का कफ़न है। 4 दिन ट्रेन में भूखे-प्यासे रहने के कारण इस माँ की मौत हो गयी। ट्रेनों में हुई इन मौतों का ज़िम्मेवार कौन? विपक्ष से कड़े सवाल पूछे जाने चाहिए कि नहीं?? pic.twitter.com/pdiaHuS9vf

— Sanjay Yadav (@sanjuydv) May 27, 2020

As the mother still lay still, he wobbles away from her, announcements continuing in the background about the arrival and departure of trains that would bring in tens of thousands of people in a rush to get away from hunger and hardship they face in large cities that could sustain them no more.

"This small child doesn't know that the bedsheet with which he is playing is the shroud of his mother who has gone into eternal sleep. This mother died of hunger and thirst after being on a train for four days. Who is responsible for these deaths on trains? Shouldn't the opposition ask uncomfortable questions?" tweeted Yadav.

However, police had a different story to tell.

Ramakant Upadhyay, the Dy SP of the Government Railway Police in Muzaffarpur, said the incident occurred on May 25 when the migrant woman was on way to Muzaffarpur from Ahmedabad by a Shramik Special train.

He told reporters the woman, who was accompanied by her sister and brother-in-law, had died on the Madhubani bound train.

"My sister-in-law died suddenly on the train. We did not face any problem getting food or water," the officer said, quoting the deceased's brother-in-law who he did not name.

He said on getting information, poice brought down the body and sent it for postmortem.

Citing the brother-in-law of the deceased, Upadhyay said she was aged 35 years and was undergoing treatment for "some disease" for the last one year in Ahmedabad. "She was also mentally unstable," he said.

When persistently queried about the cause of death, he said,"Only doctors can tell".

A massive exodus of migrant workers is on in several parts of the country, unprecedented in magnitude since Partition.

The humanitarian crisis still unfolding on highways and railway platforms has shone light on disturbing tales of entire families walking hundreds of kilometres with little children on foot in a seemingly endless march to escape hunger.

People have been found travelling on trucks and in the hollow of concrete mixing plants, and in many cases, dying from hunger and exhaustion before reaching their destinations.

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.