Muslims shouldn’t live in India; they must go to Pak or Bangla: BJP MP

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.

Sitamarhi, Jun 15: Eyewitness accounts from locals in Bihar's Sitamarhi district recount the brutality and intimidation by Nepal's security personnel who on June 12 had resorted to unprovoked firing on a group of people at the international border, which left one Indian dead and two others injured.

"18-20 shots were fired for over one hour and everyone is in shock even now," said Nitish Kumar, a resident of Jankinagar recalling the incident that took place early on Friday morning.

Nepal's Armed Police Force (APF) opened fire at the Lalbandi-Jankinagar border in which three men - Vikesh Yadav, Umesh Ram and Uday Thakur - suffered gunshot injuries. Vikash Yadav succumbed to his injuries on Friday itself.

Another person Lagan Kishore, who was at the border with his family to meet his daughter-in-law, a Nepali national and her family, said he was detained by the APF personnel who dragged him to the other side of the border.

Lagan Kishore said that the Nepali personnel abused and hit him with rifle butts and even abused his son and later resorted to firing.

Several residents of Jankinagar, who spoke to media, termed the incident as "unfortunate and shocking".

Nitish Kumar recalled: "A family was here to meet their in-laws (Nepali nationals). The daughter-in-law was talking to her family while her husband and her father-in-law sat a little distance away. Suddenly I saw Nepali personnel abusing her husband who complained about it to his father. All of a sudden the Nepali forces started thrashing them and then opened fire. They also took the father into custody."

"We were all shocked. I could hear about 18-20 gunshots fired over a period of one hour," Kumar said.

Another local, Ajit Kumar, said he was perplexed with the behaviour of the Nepali Police.

"There used to be no problems earlier. We don't understand what happened to the Nepal Police that day. The firing is unfortunate. If this continues, how will people in the border area live?" he questioned.

Ajit Kumar stated that such an incident has taken place for the first time. "People from here go to work in fields in Nepal and their people come to work in our fields. Such a thing has happened for the first time. About 80 per cent of our people are married to Nepalis," he said.

Many people who live in the adjoining districts of Bihar, which shares over 600 kilometres of border with Nepal, have relatives on either side of the border.

Meanwhile, Nepali police have claimed that Lagan Kishore, who was taken into custody following the firing by APF and handed over to Indian Security Forces at no man's land on June 13, was detained for trying to snatch a weapon from one of their personnel during an altercation.

However, both Kishore and his family have denied the claims and said he was "dragged" across the border and was beaten.

Kishore said that during the firing he had rushed towards the Indian side but Nepalese personnel hit him with rifle butt and took him to Nepal's Sangrampur. He was also asked to confess that he was taken into custody from the Nepali side.

"We ran to return to India when they started firing, but they dragged me from the Indian side, hit me with a rifle butt and took me to Nepal's Sangrampur. They told me to confess that I was brought there from Nepal. I told them you can kill me but I was brought there from India," said Kishore.

Kishore's son also said that Nepali personnel started abusing them and hit him and his father.

Speaking to ANI, Kishore's son said, "We went to meet my brother-in-law. Security personnel started abusing me but I could not understand their language. However, my brother's wife asked them to not abuse. After that, they came to the Indian side and hit me. I told my father about the incident and he confronted them."

"They started beating him and called fellow personnel who started firing and dragged my father from the Indian side, hit him with a rifle butt and took him to Nepal''s Sangrampur," he said.

Relations have become strained between India and Nepal after the latter released a map showing parts of Indian Territory-Lipulekh, Kalapani and Limpiyadhura as its own.

The Ayodhya police booked a senior journalist on Wednesday for raising questions on Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath's visit to the Ram Janmabhoomi for a religious ceremony amid the lockdown over the novel coronavirus pandemic.

The FIR mentions a tweet by Siddharth Varadarajan, editor of news portal 'The Wire', where he said: "On the day the Tablighi Jamaat event was held, Adityanath insisted a large Ram Navami fair planned for Ayodhya from March 25 to April 2 would proceed as usual and that 'Lord Ram would protect devotees from the coronavirus."

Varadarajan had clarified in another tweet that it was "Acharya Paramhans, Hindutva stalwart and head of the official Ayodhya temple trust, who said Ram would protect devotees from coronavirus, and not Adityanath, though he allowed a public event on 25/3 in defiance of the lockdown and took part himself".

Taking the suo-motu cognizance, Faizabad Kotwali police station incharge Nitish Kumar Shrivastava registered an FIR under sections 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) and 505(2) (statements conducing to public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code for doing "disreputable" comment against the chief minister.

Statement by the Founding Editors of The Wire: pic.twitter.com/frw5oRxw18

— The Wire (@thewire_in) April 1, 2020
Reacting to it, Varadarajan termed the FIR "politically motivated, saying that the offences invoked were not even remotely made out.