Narendra Modi becomes first sitting PM to visit Dharmasthala

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.

New Delhi, Feb 29: The arsonists, who were allegedly hired by the pro-CAA politicians in Delhi to unleash violence against Muslims, did not even spare the residence of Border Security Force personnel Mohammed Anees.

While the jawan, who has spent three years guarding the borders along Jammu and Kashmir, had hoped that his job profile mentioned on the nameplate hung outside their two-storey house would discourage the vandals, he was proved wrong. 

The nameplate on house number 76 in Khas Khajuri Gali clearly mentioned it was the property of a security force personnel who protects India’s borders from foreign invasions. Yet, it was burned down on the afternoon of February 25.

First, the ruthless goons set the vehicles parked outside the jawan’s house on fire, then they torched his home. Stones were also pelted at his house amid slogans of “idhar aa Pakistani, tujhe naagarikta dete hai” (Come here Pakistani, get your citizenship). 

Apart from Anees, his father Mohammed Moonis, 55, uncle Mohd Ahmed, 59, and 18-year-old cousin Niha Parveen were in the house. Sensing what was about to go down next, they all escaped from the house, and were helped by paramilitary troops.

Charred remains of the house now stand where the house was till three days ago. In the two lanes of Khajuri Khas near Anees’s house, 35 houses were set on fire. 

The loss suffered by the BSF soldier’s family was perhaps greater as they had kept all their life’s savings inside: two weddings in the family were to take place in the next three months.

Niha Parveen was to get married in April and Anees himself was to get married the following month. “All the things we collected all our life, jewellery – two gold necklaces, silver jewellery, it is all gone,” the family said.

“We used to buy jewellery on instalments… used to give money every month and collected this jewellery,” they said. Rs 3 lakh in cash for the wedding arrangements also got burnt along with other valuables and all their belongings.

Khajuri Khas is a Hindu-majority area, but Anees’s family says no neighbour of theirs was involved in the attack. “People came from outside.” Instead, their Hindu neighbours were asking the rioters to leave. They requested them to leave and helped douse the vehicles on fire.

New Delhi, Feb 26: Calling the recent violence in Delhi as 'planned conspiracy', Sonia Gandhi on Wednesday demanded Union Home Minister Amit Shah's resignation over the clashes that left 20 people dead in two days.

"CWC (Congress Working Committee) believes Home Minister and Centre is responsible. The Home Minister should tender his resignation with immediate effect," the Congress party's interim chief told reporters here.

Violent clashes erupted between pro and anti-CAA groups in parts of northeast Delhi on Monday, leading to widespread vandalism and arson for over two days.

While many blamed police for inaction to control the mobs, Union Home Minister Amit Shah met the top brass of Delhi Police, Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, LG Anil Baijal and directed the officials to control the situation.

Gandhi blamed both the Central and the Delhi governments, saying the administration did not take adequate steps on time to curb violence in the national capital.

"Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Center is equally responsible for not activating the administration to reach out to the people to maintain peace and harmony," Sonia added.

The death toll in the violence rose to 20 on Wednesday, according to GTB hospital authorities.

Government sources told ANI that the National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval has been given the charge of bringing normalcy in the capital.

Sources also said that Doval will brief Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Cabinet about the prevailing situation.

The NSA last night visited Jaffrabad, Seelampur and other parts of northeast Delhi where he held talks with leaders of different communities.

Without naming any leader, the Congress interim president also targeted the leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party for making inflammatory statements saying that "there is a conspiracy behind the violence, country also saw this during Delhi elections. Many BJP leaders made inciting comments creating an atmosphere of fear and hatred."