Muslim man converts to Hinduism with entire family to spur UP cops to investigate his son’s death

Bengaluru, Mar 15: The Karnataka government on Saturday said it would advice IT companies to allow employees to work from home as most coronavirus  affected patients or their relatives were from this sector.

"If anybody (IT companies) asks (employees to work in the office),I will speak to them through the deputy chief minister so that they take steps to issue a definite order. We have very clearly said, Stay Home, stay safe," medical education minister Dr K Sudhakar said. He recalled that the chief minister himself had issued a strict advisory to allow employees work from home.

The minister said the IT sector understands the gravity of the situation because they are educated, have travelled abroad and have more exposure to information world. "No action," he said to a question on what action would be taken against companies who do not follow the instructions.

"There is no action to be taken. We have not promulgated any law. It should be a kind of a cohesive approach from the government and the responsible citizen," he said.

The minister said he had also acted on the advice of Infosys Foundation chairperson Sudha Murty, who had told him that all areas where public and students gather, including malls, theatres, schools and colleges, should be closed.

Sudhakar claimed that the woman whose husband had tested positive for cornavirus here, had flown straight to Delhi from the city and had not come out of Bengaluru airport. He said the newly-wed couple came to Bengaluru airport on March 8 night and early on March 9, she flew alone to Delhi. From there she travelled to Agra by train. She did not come out of the airport, said the minister.

To a question on legal action being contemplated against her, the minister said he would take a call said he was not thinking of legal action at present and would take a call only after the woman, who has also tested positive for the virus, comes out of isolation. He insisted that the purpose of getting details was not to scare people.

On the preparedness in Kalaburagi, where the first Coronavirus death in India was reported, he said the administration had 'clamped down" the entire district. Meanwhile, the deputy commissioner of Ballari district ordered cancellation of tourists' entry to the world heritage site of Hampi from March 15 to 22 to prevent further spread of the virus.

Bengaluru, Mar 27: A 65-year-old coronavirus patient who died in Karnataka this morning after apparently contracting the infection on a train ride has raised concern about community transmission of the highly contagious disease.
The man, the 60th coronavirus patient in Karnataka, died in Tumakuru. It is not known for certain how he caught the virus. The Karnataka Health Department has posted a notice on Twitter asking whoever travelled with him on train to come forward.

He had no history of recent foreign travel but had apparently traveled to Delhi on March 5 by Sampark Kranti Express and returned on March 11.

On March 7, he arrived at Delhi's Nizamuddin station and participated in an event at Jamia Masjid.

The man took a train back on March 11 and arrived at Yeshwantpur in Bengaluru. From there, he took a bus on March 14 to his hometown Sira.

He first showed symptoms of COVID-19 on March 18 and was taken to a private hospital. He was sent home with medicines but his condition worsened.

On March 23, he was admitted to a district hospital, but checked himself out against all advice and went to a private hospital. When his health showed signs of deterioration, he was again sent to the district hospital, where he tested positive for coronavirus yesterday. He died around 10.30 am today.

The health department has since traced 24 people who came in direct contact with him and are so, in the high-risk category. Thirteen are in hospital and eight have tested negative.

"All passengers who had travelled with him on the train are being traced," K Rakesh Kumar, Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru, was quoted as telling news agency ANI.

A 70-year old woman and a 76-year old man had died of coronavirus or COVID-19 earlier in Karnataka.

India has over 700 coronavirus cases, including 17 deaths.

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.