Mangaluru, Mumbai to be first Indian cities to submerge: NASA study

Jun 4: Belur Mutt, the global headquarters of Ramakrishna Mutt and Ramakrishna Mission, has decided to throw open its gates to the devotees from June 15 after putting in place all safety measures required to contain the spread of COVID-19.

The gates of the sprawling premises of the mutt set up by Swami Vivekananada at Belur near here was closed since the lockdown was announced in March by the Centre. The Mutt has devotees from across the globe.

The secretary of Belur Mutt Ramakrishna Mutt and Ramakrishna Mission, Swami Suvirananda said in a statement that as the easing down of lockdown measures announced by the Centre and the state did not indicate the threat caused by COVID-19 pandemic is over, the authorities thought it prudent to put in place all the measures required before opening the gates of the Mutt and all RKM centres in the country for the scores of devotees.

The statement was issued on June 1, the day religious places of worship were thrown open by the West Bengal government.

"We had to think about both aspects - the issue of public health and also the wish of our devotees for having a darshan of the shrines of Swami Vivekananda, Sri Sarada Maa and Ramamrishna Paramahansa. But we believe spirituality and sceintific temparament must go hand in hand," he told reporters on Thursday.

"Therefore it is imperative for us to consult experts and put in place adequate arrangement and infrastructure" before opening the (Belur Mutt) gates," he said.

The senior monk said the timing of the opening and closure of the shrine and all other details conforming the health protocol and guidelines will be announced before opening date.

The Mutt complex had become totally out of bound for visitors from March 24 when the lockdown was clamped. There was restricted entry to it since May 16.

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.

Bengaluru, May 12: Former chief minister and senior Congress leader Siddaramaiah on Tuesday said that the Central and Karnataka government have failed in containing the coronavirus spread despite having enough time for preparations.

"Central and state government failed in properly controlling COVID-19. The first coronavirus case was reported in Kerala on January 30. Lockdown was imposed on March 24. Both Centre and state had enough time for preparations," Siddaramaiah said in a press meet here.

He said that the Central government did not stop the airline services on time.

"Karnataka government might have been able to stop COVID-19 properly. However, both the state and central government are playing politics over the issue and blaming Tablighi Jamaat for the spread, which is a political strategy painted by the RSS," Siddaramaiah said.

"Who gave the licence to Tablighi's international convention? Who gave them permission in Delhi? They didn't control it. Central government is directly responsible for the increasing numbers of COVID-19 cases in India," he added.

Siddaramaiah said that the lockdown was imposed without any preparation, which he said caused huge problems for the migrant workers across the country.

"Now, the government is collecting ticket fare and looting migrant workers. They don't have jobs or food, they don't have money, and they earn every day to survive. How will they pay for the tickets? Why the government is not arranging for free trains?" the Congress leader said.

He said that around Rs 35,000 crore have been credited to PM CARES fund, Rs 3,000 crore of which was credited from Karnataka alone. "Why are they not using that money?" he asked.

Siddaramaiah said that the party is demanding for the Centre to arrange for migrant workers to return to their native places across the country free of cost.

"We asked Chief Minister to call an all party meeting. We gave many suggestions, which this government did not consider. We also took a delegation and gave a memorandum about farmers, daily wage workers, road side vendors, barbers, problems faced by the unorganized sector. But this government didn't consider any of it," he said.

Questioning the Central government's suggestion to States to amend their Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) Acts, Siddaramaiah said that the move is against the federal system of the country and claimed that it harms the interests of small scale farmers.

He said that the BJP-led state government has also decided to postpone the Gram panchayat elections in the state and is trying to nominate their party workers for village panchayat elections.

"The Government must continue with the present members of the Gram panchayat. If BJP tries to nominate their party members to village panchayats, we will take to streets to protest despite the lockdown," Siddaramaiah added.