US eyes more cuts in Indian imports of Iranian oil

New Delhi, Apr 14: Prime Minister Narendra Modi has announced the extension of a nationwide lockdown till May 3 to contain the spread of Covid-19 as the number of novel coronavirus cases surged past 10,000-mark on Tuesday. Hinting at partial relief, however, the Prime Minister said there could be some relaxations after April 20 in places where there is no hotspot.

Lockdown 2.0 will come into force from April 14 till May 3, PM Modi said in a televised address to the nation on Tuesday. The 19-day extension of the lockdown till May 3 is an attempt to contain the spread of novel coronavirus which has affected over 10,000 people in India. 

Even before #COVID19 cases touched 100, India made it compulsory for foreign returnees to remain in 14 days isolation. We imposed 21-day lockdown when we had 550 cases: PM Narendra Modi https://t.co/qi8MgG8qPQ

— ANI (@ANI) April 14, 2020
PM Modi said the Centre will closely monitor hotspots in states across India and added that those areas where there are no hotspots will get partial relief. “Till April 20, all districts, localities, states will be closely monitored, as to how strictly they are implementing norms. States where hotspots are contained could be allowed to resume some important activities, but with certain conditions,” the PM said.

The Prime Minister, in his address to India on Tuesday, began by lauding the efforts of Indians in the fight against novel coronavirus. “Covid-19 is spreading fast but India’s fight against coronavirus is going strong. It is because of your efforts that we are able to put up a fight,” the PM said as he thanked people for their co-operation.

PM Modi said, “People have gone through hardships to save India. I know how many difficulties you faced. I respectfully bow to the people of India for their sacrifice.”

The national lockdown first came into force from March 25 when the PM took an unprecedented measure in the fight against Covid-19. The lockdown was scheduled to end today.

STATES PUSHED FOR LOCKDOWN 2.0

The decision to extend the lockdown followed after a broad consensus emerged that the national lockdown should be extended by at least two weeks following a meeting between PM Modi and state chief ministers on Saturday.

It was reportedly after this meet with the Prime Minister that it was decided that the nationwide lockdown will be extended to tackle the spread of Coivid-19. The extension request from states came despite concerns that the shutdown will put millions out of work.

PM has taken correct decision to extend lockdown. Today, India’s position is better than many developed countries because we started lockdown early. If it is stopped now, all gains would be lost. To consolidate, it is imp to extend it

— Arvind Kejriwal (@ArvindKejriwal) April 11, 2020
"If it is stopped now, all gains would be lost. To consolidate, it is imp (important) to extend it," Arvind Kejriwal had written on Twitter after the meeting while he added that PM Modi had "taken (a) correct decision to extend (the) lockdown”.

Several states had, however, pushed for resumption of some economic activities like in the farming sector in areas where no cases of the novel coronavirus have been reported.

ALL THAT HAS HAPPENED TILL NOW

Prime Minister Narendra Modi first addressed an anxious nation on March 19 as the coronavirus pandemic emerged as a serious concern for the country. In his televised address, the PM asked the people to observe ‘Janata Curfew’ for March 22.
The Prime Minister urged Indians to remain indoors as much as possible as he suggested ways to battle the coronavirus pandemic.

On March 24, the Prime Minister came back and announced a 21-day lockdown across the country. In his second address, PM Modi said the step was taken as it was the only way to break the chain of infection. The lockdown was to be in effect till April 14.

PM Modi later asked citizens to make noise at 5 pm to show their appreciation for medics, nurses and sanitation workers. This call was well received as Indians came out to clap, clang metal vessels and ring bells to cheer workers battling the spread of the coronavirus.

Ten days into the lockdown, the Prime Minister addressed the nation again and asked people to light candles, lamps and hold mobile phone torches for nine minutes from 9 pm on April 5 to demonstrate a collective will to fight coronavirus.

As of Tuesday morning, the death toll due to coronavirus has climbed to 339 with over 50 deaths within 24 hours. The number of cases in the country, meanwhile, had crossed the 10,000-mark, according to the Union Health Ministry. Over a thousand have been cured and discharged.

New Delhi, Apr 14: With 1,211 fresh cases of coronavirus reported in the last 24 hours, the total number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the country has reached 10,363 including 339 deaths, said Lav Aggarwal, Joint Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, here on Tuesday.

As many as 1,036 people have recovered from the disease so far, said Aggarwal during the daily media briefing on the coronavirus. "In one day, 179 people were diagnosed and found cured," he added.

"A total of 10,363 confirmed cases have been reported in India including 339 deaths and 1,036 people, who were COVID-19 positive have recovered. Out of the total deaths, 31 deaths have been reported in the last 24 hours," said Aggarwal.

Aggarwal said that an evaluation of each district and city will be done till April 20.

"An evaluation of each district and city will be done till April 20 in which it will be evaluated what measures did that authorities take in these cities and districts to combat COVID-19," he said.

"Based on the results of this litmus test approach, permission will be granted for some selective activities to those districts and cities which controlled the situation effectively. Detailed guidelines will be issued soon," he added.

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.