NJAC: Somnath wants govt to set things right without feuding with Judiciary

Mar 11: Thirteen of the 22 rebel MLAs in Madhya Pradesh have given an assurance that "they are not leaving the Congress", senior party leader Digvijaya Singh said on Thursday while expressing confidence that the Kamal Nath-led government in the state will win a floor test.

"We are not keeping quiet. We are not sleeping," Singh told PTI, a day after Congress leader from the state Jyotiraditya Scindia quit the Congress and 22 MLAs submitted their resignations from the assembly in Madhya Pradesh.

Scindia was offered the post of Madhya Pradesh deputy chief minister but wanted his nominee, Singh said. However, Kamal Nath refused to accept a "chela", he said.

Scindia, he said, could have been a Congress nominee to the Rajya Sabha but "only Modi-Shah" can give a Cabinet post to the "over-ambitious" leader.

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.

New Delhi, Feb 5: Following is the chronology of events in the 2012 Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case in which the Delhi High Court on Wednesday said the all the four convicts have to be hanged together, not separately.

- Dec 16, 2012: Paramedical student gang-raped and brutally assaulted by six men in a private bus and thrown out of the moving vehicle along with her male friend. The victims admitted to Safdarjung Hospital.

- Dec 17: Widespread protests erupt demanding stringent action.

- Police identify the accused - bus driver Ram Singh, his brother Mukesh Kumar, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Gupta.

- Dec 18: Ram Singh and three others arrested.

- Dec 20: Victim's friend testifies.

- Dec 21: A delinquent juvenile nabbed from Anand Vihar bus terminal in Delhi. Victim's friend identifies Mukesh as one of the culprits. Police conduct raids in Haryana and Bihar to nab the sixth accused, Akshay Kumar.

- Dec 21-22: Akshay arrested in Aurangabad district of Bihar and brought to Delhi. Victim records statement before the SDM in hospital.

- Dec 26: Following a cardiac arrest, victim flown to Singapore's Mount Elizabeth Hospital by the government.

- Dec 29: Victim succumbs to injuries and other medical conditions. Police add murder charge in the FIR.

- Jan 2, 2013: The then Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir inaugurates fast track court (FTC) for speedy trial in sexual offence cases.

- Jan 3: Police file charge sheet against five adults accused of murder, gang-rape, attempt to murder, kidnapping, unnatural offences and dacoity.

- Jan 17: FTC starts proceedings against the five adult accused.

- Jan 28: Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) says minority of the juvenile accused is proved.

- Feb 2: FTC frames charges against five adult accused.

- Feb 28: JJB frames charges against the minor.

- Mar 11: Ram Singh commits suicide in Tihar Jail.

- Jul 8: FTC completes recording of testimonies of prosecution witnesses.

- Jul 11: Delhi High Court allows three international news agencies to cover the trial in the case.

- Aug 22: FTC begins hearing final arguments in trial against four adult accused.

- Aug 31: JJB convicts the minor for gang-rape and murder and awards three-year term at probation home.

- Sep 3: FTC concludes trial. Reserves verdict.

- Sep 10: Court convicts Mukesh, Vinay, Akshay, Pawan of 13 offences including gang-rape, unnatural offence and murder of the girl and attempt to murder her male friend.

- Sep 13: Court awards death penalty to all 4 convicts.

- Sep 23: HC begins hearing the convicts' death sentence reference sent to it by the trial court.

- Jan 3, 2014: HC reserves verdict on convicts' appeals.

- Mar 13: HC upholds death penalty to the 4 convicts.

- Mar 15: SC stays execution of 2 convicts, Mukesh and Pawan, after they file appeals. Later, stays execution of other convicts also.

- Apr 15: SC directs police to produce the dying declaration of the victim.

- Feb 3, 2017: SC says it would hear afresh the aspect of awarding death penalty to the convicts.

- Mar 27: SC reserves verdict on their appeals.

- May 5: SC upholds death penalty to four convicts, says the case falls under the category of 'rarest of rare' and the offence created "tsunami of shock".

- Nov 8: Mukesh, one of the four death row convicts in the case, moves SC seeking review of its verdict upholding the capital punishment awarded to him.

- Dec 12: Delhi Police opposes Mukesh's plea in SC.

- Dec 15: Convicts Vinay Sharma and Pawan Kumar Gupta move SC for review of its verdict.

- May 4, 2018: SC reserves order on review plea of Vinay and Pawan.

- Jul 9: SC dismisses review pleas of three convicts.

- Feb, 2019: Victim's parents move Delhi court for issuance of death warrants of the four convicts

- Dec 10, 2019: Akshay moves plea in SC seeking review of his death penalty.

- Dec 13: Victim's mother moves SC opposing review plea of convict

- Dec 18: SC dismisses Akshay's review plea.

- Delhi govt seeks death warrants for execution of death sentence to the 4 convicts

- Delhi court directs Tihar authorities to issue notice to convicts to avail their remaining legal remedies.

- Dec 19: Delhi HC dismisses plea of Pawan Kumar Gupta claiming he was a juvenile at the time of the offence.

- Jan 6, 2020: Delhi court dismisses complaint filed by Pawan's father seeking FIR against sole witness

- Jan 7: Delhi court orders 4 convicts to be hanged on January 22 at 7 am in Tihar jail.

- Jan 14: SC rejects curative petition of Vinay and Mukesh Kumar.

Mukesh files mercy petition before President

- Jan 17: President Ram Nath Kovind rejects mercy plea of Mukesh.

- Trial court issues death warrants again with execution date as February 1, 6 am.

- Jan 25: Mukesh moves SC against rejection of mercy plea.

- Jan 28: SC hears arguments, reserves verdict

- Jan 29: Convict Akshya Kumar approaches SC with curative petition

- SC rejects plea of Mukesh challenging rejection of his mercy plea.

- Jan 30: SC dismisses curative plea of Akshay Kumar Singh.

- Jan 31: SC dismisses plea filed by Pawan seeking review of its order rejecting his juvenility claim.

- Delhi court again postpones execution of the black warrants till further order.

- Feb 1: Centre moves HC against the trial court order.

- Feb 2: HC reserves judgement on Centre's plea.

- Feb 5: HC dismisses Centre plea against trial court order; says all 4 convicts have to be hanged together. It directs the convicts to pursue all legal remedies within a week, failing which the authorities ordered to take action in accordance with law.