Malayalam actress molested on train, says 'nobody came to help'

Nalgonda,  Jul 5: Bollywood filmmaker Ram Gopal Varma has been booked in connection with his upcoming film 'Murder' which is based on Pranay Kumar's murder in Nalgonda district.

Ram Gopal Varma was booked following Nalgonda court's directive on a petition filed by father of a man who was killed in an alleged honour killing incident in Miryalaguda in 2018.

"We have booked filmmaker Ram Gopal Varma following a court order for his upcoming movie 'Murder', which is based on sensational caste-based Pranay Kumar's murder that occurred in Miryalguda, Nalgonda District in September 2018, " Police said.

On June 21, the filmmaker has released the poster of 'Murder', based on a true story.
Police said, "Pranay's father Balaswamy has filed a petition in Nalgonda Court stating that the film will affect the on-going trial of Pranay's murder case and the film should be stalled."

"We've registered a case under relevant section of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act and taken up investigation."

"The court has ordered Nalgonda police to register a case against the film director Ram Gopal Varma and the producer," added the police.

The unexpected lockdown to prevent spread of covid–19 has caused a serious damage to the lives of Indian expatriates irrespective of laborers and entrepreneurs in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Different stories of expatriates' ordeals are emerging from the region. 

Abdul Razaq, hailing from Udupi in Karnataka has been running small scale business at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, based on oil refinery projects of the government. He was undergoing medical treatment for his cancer which is in fist stage. He explaines his ordeals caused by lockdown and stopping the flight facility. 

“I was regularly visiting home country for the treatment of cancer. Now I cannot go as international flight service has been stopped. I expect that government will hear problems of expatriates and will arrange facilities to take us back to home”, he said.

Mubeen from Bengaluru was working on temporary basis  for a company in Jubail. He had lost his jobs like some of his colleagues due to the lockdown.

“As everything was alright, I had brought my parents recently to Saudi Arabia on a visit visa. Things changed drastically with covid-19 attack. Continuous lockdown caused burden over the company and they removed temporary employees like me to control possible losses” he said.

“Now owner of the flat has been harassing me for the rent. I do not have money either to pay rent or to cover daily family expenses. I do not know what to do further”, he added. 

Iqbal from Mangaluru left for Saudi Arabia to help his family. He got a job in a juce centre in Dammam recently. Corona lockdown made his life difficult. He is eager to return his home country. 

“I came to Saudi Arbia because of financial difficulties as I had not found any job with good salary there. I thought I can earn well by going to Saudi Arabia. However, here too the salary was not so good. Now juice center is closed due to lockdown and sponsor is giving very small amount of money as salary through which we cannot afford our expenses and our families back in home,” he said.

“Here It is not easy get help of fellow Indians since most of them have their own ordeals. I would like to return home country; there however we can manage to get help of friends and relatives. I am looking forward the help of Indian government to start air facility for stranded NRIs,” he said. 

Mohsin from Mysuru is a taxi driver in Dammam, Saudi Arabia. He was earning on commission basis. Now Saudi government banned movement of taxis in the region, which pushed him and his fellow taxi drivers into trouble.

“We were earning commissions daily on the basis of trips. Now we cannot move outside with taxi since it may cause us to pay the fine of SR.10000. How can I manage my expenses and family members in home?”, he asked.

There are cases of pregnant women who have to return India for delivery. Those who brought family here on visit visa will not have insurance. Delivery charges and any kind of medical facilities without insurance in Saudi Arabia is very expensive. Expatriate Indians with such problems are awaiting government's help.

“I had brought my wife on one year visit visa. Now she is pregnant and I have to send her back to home for delivery. If lockdown continues, it is difficult to send back and we have to spend big amounts for delivery without insurance. It is a big burden to me as I work for small salary in a company”, said Yunus from Hyderabad, who is living in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Lockdown is haunting even entrepreneurs in Saudi Arabia. Most of expatriates in the industrial hub of Jubail are doing business based on Saudi Government’s oil refinery projects. Saudi Arabia temporarily stopped most of the projects as part of public health safety measures to maintain social distance. 

“We are doing business based on oil refinery projects. Now projects are stopped. We brought around 1100 people on work permit visa on temporary basis. And also, we have around 1200 permanent workers. It is a big burden to provide them with food, accommodation and salary. It may cause a big loss for our company”, said owner of expatriates company, Sheikh Mohammed.

Saudi Arabia had reported first corona virus affected case in March 2, 2020. At the end of March, it was 1600 and now it already corssed 6000. Saudi Health ministry has cautioned the number of affected people may rise 10000 to 200,000 and directed for more precautionary measures. In such case, the Indian expatriates may have to face crisis in the region. 

Indian expatriate organizations are demanding for immediate intervention of Indian government to ensure better quarantine facility and treatment of NRIs in Saudi Arabia as the cases are increasing rapidly. The condition of laborers in some of the camps are such that seven to eight people should share a single bed room. 

“Normally if there is a flat, it will consist three to four bed rooms. In single bedroom companies will provide three four bunk beds and six to eight people should share the room. In such cases, if a person affected with virus it will spread quickly to others. Thus, Indian government should ensure quarantine facility for NRIs”, says Wasim Rabbani, president of Indian Social Forum, Eastern Region, Saudi Arabia. 

President of Karnataka Non Residential Indians, A forum for the NRI organizations of Karnataka, Zakaria Muzain says Indian Government should immediately interfere to bring back those stranded NRIs who wish to return home. Government should intervene to pressure Indian embassy to take the issues of troubled expatriates. 

“Government should make special flight arrangement for such NRIs in trouble. It should also arrange quarantine facility for those who return to India. Already there are many Non-Governmental charity organization which have come forward to give their facilities for NRIs”, he said. 

NRIs from all categories are looking forward for the help of Indian government. It is important to Indian government to take quick action as the problem is increasing in Saudi Arabia.

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.