Hindu terror remark:Court dismisses plea to call PM, Sonia as witnesses

New Delhi, May 24: The Indian economy is likely to slip into recession in the third quarter of this fiscal as loss in income and jobs and cautiousness among consumers will delay recovery in consumer demand even after the pandemic, says a report.

According to Dun & Bradstreet's latest Economic Observer, the country's economic recovery will depend on the efficacy and duration of implementation of the government's stimulus package.

"The multiplier effect of the stimulus measures on the economy will depend on three key aspects i.e. the time taken for effecting the withdrawal of the lockdown, the efficacy of implementation and duration of execution of the measures announced," Dun & Bradstreet India Chief Economist Arun Singh said.

The report noted that the government's larger-than-expected stimulus package is likely to re-start economic activities.

Besides, measures taken by the Reserve Bank of India like reducing the repo rate by a further 40 basis points to 4 per cent, extending the moratorium period by three months and facilitating working capital financing will also help stimulate the momentum.

Singh said while the measures announced by the government are "positive", most of them have been directed towards strengthening the supply side of the economy, and "it is to be noted that supply needs to be matched with demand", he said.

Besides, "in the absence of cash-in-hand benefits under the government's stimulus package, demand for goods and services is expected to remain depressed", he added.

He further said the loss in income and employment opportunities, and cautiousness among consumers, will lead to a delayed recovery in consumer demand, even after the pandemic. As debt and bad loan levels increase, the banking sector might face challenges.

The report further noted that even as the monetary stimulus is expected to inject liquidity and stimulate demand for a wider section of the economy, the channelisation of funds from the financial institutions will be subjected to several constraints.

The foremost concern being increase in risk averseness, as the balance sheets of firms, households, and banks/NBFCs have weakened considerably and low demand for funds by firms as production activities have been on a standstill during the lockdown period, Singh said.

India has been under lockdown since March 25 to contain the spread of the coronavirus, resulting in supply disruptions and demand compression.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi imposed a nationwide lockdown to control the spread of coronavirus on March 25. It has been extended thrice, with some relaxations. The fourth phase of the lockdown is set to expire on May 31. 

New Delhi, Jan 29: The Janata Dal (United) today expelled its vice-president Prashant Kishor and senior leader Pavan Kumar accusing them of "anti-party" activities.

Both the leaders have been attacking the party leadership over its pro-CAA stand.

The spat between Nitish Kumar and Kishor was out in the open yesterday when the former reminded the political strategist that he was inducted into the party on the recommendation of Union home minister Amit Shah.

It all began when Nitish, while talking to the media here, said, “I don’t have any problem if he (Kishor) wants to leave the party. But if he wants to stay, then he will have to follow the basic structure of the party.”

Varma had also questioned the JDU's alliance with the BJP in Delhi Assembly polls while Kishor has more than once voiced his differences with the party known on the issue of CAA and NRC.
 

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.