MEA team to arrive in Bengaluru to reassure African students

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.

Jan 18: Days after the arrest of Deputy SP Davinder Singh along with two Hizbul Mujahideen terrorists, Shiv Sena on Saturday questioned the role of police in the Kashmir Valley.

"Cross border infiltration is ongoing in Kashmir. But the police machinery is being used to help the terrorists in Kashmir to safely cross the border (to Pakistan) and a President's medal awarded Deputy SP was arrested for doing so. In Kashmir (it seems), the government is using the police for some other purposes, what will the country's Home Ministry say if somebody has a doubt in connection with the Pulwama attacks," Sena mouthpiece, Saamna, read.

This was in reference to the incident in which Jammu and Kashmir police intercepted a vehicle on Sunday and arrested DySP Davinder Singh along with two top Hizbul Mujahideen terrorists, who were travelling together.

The Sena mouthpiece asserted that the impact and acceptance of the Centre removing Article 370 should be visible "through the people" during the upcoming Republic Day celebrations.

"Jammu and Kashmir is now a Union Territory. It is being ruled by the Centre through President's Rule. The government had removed Article 370 in a historic decision...The joy and excitement in the people over the removal of 370 should be visible in the Republic Day celebrations this time. The tricolour should be seen flying over all houses in Kashmir, it is the least that can be expected," it added.

The Sena mouthpiece further said that with the arrest of terrorists in the recent days, it hoped that "Republic Day will be celebrated safely in Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir".

New Delhi, Apr 24: Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has termed the government decision to freeze Dearness Allowance of Central government employees for a year as "insensitive and inhuman."

The former Congress President in a tweet said: "Lakhs and crores are being spent on the Bullet Train and New Delhi's Central Vista which should have been suspended, but the government has deducted DA of Central government employees and pensioners... It is insensitive and inhuman."

"The tragic part is that by deducting this amount from January 1, 2020 up to 30th June, 2021 for a period of 1.5 years, the government of India proceeds to deduct almost Rs 38 thousand crore from the income of these middle class government employees and pensioners, who rely completely on the pay and pensions that they receive," said Randeep Surjewala, chief spokesperson of Congress.

There are about 50 lakh such serving government employees and about 62 lakh pensioners.

"Even more tragic and objectionable is the fact that the government of India has not even spared our armed forces. The government has deducted Rs 11 thousand crore of the 15 lakh serving armed forces personnel and nearly 26 lakh military pensioners. What is their fault? They are serving the nation in times of all types of crises," said Surjewala.

The Congress alleged that the government did not spare the savings scheme.

Instead of curbing the wasteful expenditure, the government has been constantly hitting at the income of government employees and the middle class, it added.