Manmohan to take charge of finance ministry

New Delhi, May 29: More than 38,000 doctors, including those retired from the Armed Forces Medical Services, have volunteered to help the government in its fight against COVID-19 pandemic, a senior official said on Friday.

On March 25, the government had made an appeal to doctors, including the retired ones, to come forward and join the efforts to fight the pandemic.

"38,162 volunteer doctors, including retired government, Armed Forces Medical Services, public sector undertaking or private doctors have signed up with the government to battle COVID-19 pandemic," the official said.

The official further said Niti Aayog has sent a list of names of these doctors to Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA).

In a statement posted on Niti Aayog's website on March 25, the government had said those who wish to contribute to this noble mission may register themselves through a link provided on the Aayog's website.

"The Government of India requests for volunteer doctors who are fit and willing to be available for providing their services in the public health facilities and the training hospitals in the near future.

"We appeal to such doctors to come forward at this hour of need. You could also be a retired government, Armed Forces Medical Services, public sector undertaking or a private doctor," the statement had said.

It had noted that in case the outbreak leads to a high number of infected individuals, India's public health facilities will face tremendous load to take care of a large number of patients.

Many countries, including the US, Italy, the UK and Vietnam, had also urged retired health workers to come back to work amid the pandemic.

The number of COVID-19 cases in India has climbed to 1,65,799, making it the world's ninth worst-hit country by the coronavirus pandemic.

The Health Ministry on Friday said the death toll due to COVID-19 rose to 4,706 in the country.

New Delhi, Jun 12: The Supreme Court on Friday slammed the Delhi government on news reports showing deplorable condition of medical wards in Delhi, where dead bodies were not only in wards, but were also found in lobby and waiting areas.

The apex court termed the situation in Delhi "horrendous, horrific and pathetic". It slammed the Arvind Kejriwal-led Delhi government for its handling of dead bodies, terming it "very sorry state of affairs".

A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, SK Kaul and MR Shah took suo moto cognizance of the ill-treatment being meted out to Covid patients in hospitals and also the undignified way in which dead bodies of Covid patients were being handled.

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, said there was a case in Delhi where dead bodies were found alongside patients, who were undergoing treatment.

Justice Shah questioned Mehta, "So what have you done?"

The bench termed the situation in Delhi "horrendous, horrific and pathetic", and reproached the government for patients being placed alongside stacks of dead bodies in the hospitals. The bench noted that patients' families aren't even informed about deaths and in some cases, families haven't been able to attend the last rites, too.

The bench noted that there is a problem with the way the pandemic was being fought in the national capital.

"The number of tests conducted are low in Delhi compared to Chennai and Mumbaia...Why are tests so less in Delhi?" the bench said.

"Nobody should be denied testing onn technical reasons...simplify procedure so more and more can test for Covid," said the bench.

The top court pointed out that it is the duty of the state to conduct testing so that more people know about their health status.

The top court also noted that the situation is grim even in Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal.

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.