Rupee marks lowest level as investors flee

Meerut, Jan 8: Hangman Pawan Jallad, who officials say is being considered to carry out the execution of the four Nirbhaya gangrape case convicts, on Tuesday said he is ready for the job which will send out a strong message in the society.

He said executing those who were involved in the horrific crime will bring "great relief" to him, Nirbhaya's parents and everybody else.

Earlier in the day, a Delhi court issued death warrants against all the four convicts in the Nirbhaya gangrape-murder case and ordered that they are hanged on January 22 at 7 am in Tihar jail.

The death warrant, also known as a black warrant, addressed to the office of the Tihar jail chief, was issued by Additional Sessions Judge Satish Kumar Arora against Mukesh (32), Pawan Gupta (25), Vinay Sharma (26) and Akshay Kumar Singh (31).

"I do not have any information regarding the execution, nobody has spoken to me yet. If anyone approaches me, I am ready to do the job. Earlier, I was asked to be ready for the execution on December 16," Pawan Jallad told reporters here.

"Those who were involved in this brutal incident must be hanged, which will send out a strong message in the society," he said.

"Hanging the Nirbhaya gangrape case convicts will certainly bring great relief to me, her parents and everybody else," he added.

Nirbhaya, a 23-year-old paramedic student, was gang-raped and brutalised on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012, inside a moving bus in south Delhi by the four men, along with two others, before being dumped on the road.

She died on December 29, 2012, at Mount Elizabeth Hospital in Singapore.

Of the six persons convicted, one allegedly committed suicide in jail and another, a juvenile, was released from a reformation home after serving a three-year term.

When contacted, Jail Superintendent of Meerut prison V P Pandey said he has not yet received any letter from Tihar authorities.

"Last month, we had received a letter asking us to keep Pawan Jallad ready but there is no fresh communication. The Delhi court warrants were issued this evening, maybe we will get the letter for sending him by tomorrow (Wednesday)," he said.

The gangrape of 23-year-old, who came to be known as 'Nirbhaya', the fearless one, sparked outrage across the country. Repulsed, people took to the streets across the country, demanding justice for her and better safety measures for women.

The case led to toughening of India's rape laws.

New Delhi, Mar 25: The Congress said on Wednesday that it stood with Prime Minister Narendra Modi on his appeal for 21-day lockdown but was "deeply disappointed by the lack of coherent strategy" and demanded that Rs 7,500 should be transferred to every Jan Dhan, PM Kisan and pension account to tide over the nutrition needs for 21-days.
It also demanded that the Public Distribution System (PDS) ration should be given free.
In a series of tweets, Congress Communications in-charge Randeep Singh Surejwala said that the need of the hour was to implement 'Minimum Income Guarantee Scheme' (Nyay) mooted by the Congress and party leader Rahul Gandhi.
"Please transfer Rs 7,500 to every Jan Dhan, PM Kisan, and every pension account to tide over nutrition needs of 21 days and give free PDS ration. We will rise together as a nation and defeat COVID-19. We stand with lockdown but are deeply disappointed by the lack of coherent strategy or a clear 'way ahead' on your part," he said.
Surjewala asked what steps the government took despite an early warning about COVID-19 and sought details about isolation beds and ventilators available to people.
"Dear PM, India will adhere to the lockdown but what steps did the govt take to tackle the corona pandemic despite early warnings in Feb? When will doctors, nurses and health workers have adequate protection? How many 'isolation beds' and ventilators are available and where?" he said.
He asked how daily wagers and labourers will sustain during the 21-day lockdown.
"What's your plan to address the huge issue of bread and butter and livelihood for millions? How will daily wagers, labourers, MGNREGA workers, factory workers, unorganised workers, fishermen, farmers and farm labour sustain for 21 days?" he asked.
Surjewala said the crying need is to arm doctors, nurses and health workers with personal protection equipment and asked: "why are N-95 masks, Hazmat suits not available?"
"In March itself, India needs 7.25 lakh bodysuits, 60 lakh N-95 masks, 1 crore 3 ply masks? When will they be available?" he asked.
Surjewala said that the government banned the export of ventilators, respiratory devices and sanitisers only yesterday on March 24, "84 days after the spread of COVID-19."
"Is this your government's 'Modus operandi' to fight coronavirus? Too little, Too late!," he said.
Noting that two-thirds of the country's population is engaged in agriculture, he said that Prime Minister Modi did not refer to farmers during his address to the nation and demanded a moratorium on farmers' loans.
"Crop is ready for harvest in March itself. How will it be harvested and sold and who will buy at fair price? Indebtedness relief to farmers is the only way forward in these testing times. Please put a moratorium on farmers' loans and recoveries. Please ensure the procurement of crops at MSP. Let's not forget that farmers are the backbone of India's economy," he said.
Surjewala said the Prime Minister gave only four hours to prepare for 21-day lockdown.
"Did you think of over 5 lakh truck drivers, who are now stranded on roads? Did you think of millions of workers, who are stranded in cities away from home without food or money? What should they do," he asked.

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.