UPA fears en masse resignation by BJP MPs, readies strategy

Lucknow, Feb 16: Resident doctors at the AMU's Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital on Sunday demanded that the charges slapped against Dr Kafeel Khan under the National Security Act be withdrawn.

Dr Khan was arrested by the UP Special Task Force from Mumbai on January 29 in connection with a speech he had delivered during an anti-CAA protest at Aligarh Muslim University on December 12.

The Resident Doctors' Association (RDA) held a protest march on the hospital campus against the slapping of the NSA against the Gorakhpur doctor after he was granted bail in connection with the alleged hate speech.

RDA president Dr Hamza Malik said the move was a "blatant attempt to crush dissent and a violation of the Constitution of india".

He said by targeting the doctor, the UP government had done a great disservice to the entire medical community.

The AMU Students' Coordination Committee also described the decision to charge Dr Kafeel under the NSA a "direct assault" on a member of the medical fraternity who is "known for his upright behaviour and a champion of free speech".

Committee spokesperson and former AMU Students' Union president Faizul Hasan said by charging Dr Kafeel under the NSA even after he got bail was "a direct violation of a Supreme Court ruling on such issues".

Hasan said Dr Kafeel's fate should serve as an eye-opener for the rest of the country regarding the democratic rights in Uttar Pradesh.

The doctor was earlier arrested for his alleged role in the death of over 60 children within an week at the BRD Medical College in Gorakhpur in August 2017. Short supply of oxygen at the children's ward was blamed at that time for the deaths.

About two years later, a state government probe cleared Khan of all major charges, prompting him to seek an apology from the Yogi Adityanath government.

As many as employees of Zee News have tested positive for the coronavirus, Editor-in-Chief Sudhir Chaudhary said on Monday. Most of them are asymptomatic, he said, tweeting an official statement from Zee News about the situation.

The organisation said that on May 15, one of its employees tested positive for the coronavirus. Following this, the company started testing employees who may have come in contact with the employee. Twenty-seven more were found to be infected.

“Fortunately most of them are asymptomatic and are not complaining of any discomfort,” Zee News said. “We believe this is because of early diagnosis and proactive intervention.”

The news network said all guidelines and protocols have been followed, and its office, newsroom and studios have been sealed for sanitisation. The Zee News team has been shifted to an alternative facility.

“At the moment, Zee Media Corporation has 2,500 employees, by far the largest in the private sector,” the company said. “We are committed to the safety of each one of them.”

Chaudhary also claimed that “those who are infected had the option of sitting at home and sharing memes”. “They came to work because they are committed professionals.”

Following this, some social media users claimed that Zee News employees found infected with Covid-19 were still at work. In response, Chaudhary alleged that a malicious campaign was being conducted to distort his statement. He said no infected employee had come to work, and all the contacts of the employee who tested positive on May 15 had been tested and quarantined.

Over the past two months, journalists from several media organisations have tested positive for the coronavirus. On April 21, 26 employees of a Tamil news channel based in Chennai tested positive for the coronavirus. The previous day, over 50 journalists from Mumbai were found infected, after samples of over 170 journalists were tested.

On May 7, a newspaper journalist died of the coronavirus in Agra. Some states, such as Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka and Delhi, have tested journalists for Covid-19.

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.