Obama, Modi at India-US CEO Forum

New Delhi, Jun 20: A rare celestial event, annular solar eclipse, which is popularly known as the "ring of fire" eclipse, will be visible this Sunday in India.

It will be the first solar eclipse of this year takes place on the summer solstice, which is the longest day in the Northern Hemisphere.

While people living along the path annular eclipse passing through Anupgarh, Suratgarh, Sirsa, Jakhal, Kurukshetra, Yamunanagar, Dehradun, Tapowan and Joshimath will be able to see the annular phase, people in rest of India can witness a partial eclipse, said the Ministry of Science and Technology.

When Moon comes between the Sun and Earth, the shadow falls on the surface of the Earth. The Sun is entirely covered by the Moon for a brief period. Those places that are engulfed by the dark, dense umbral shadow of the Moon experience the total solar eclipse. In the regions that plunge into the soft diffused penumbral shadow of the Moon experience the partial eclipse.

"Annular solar eclipse is a particular case of the total solar eclipse. Like the total solar eclipse, the Moon is aligned with the Sun. However, on that day, the apparent size of the Moon happens to be a wee smaller than the Sun. Hence the Moon covers the central part of the Sun, and the rim of the Sun appear like a 'ring of fire' in the sky for a very brief moment" explains Samir Dhurde of The Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pune.

During the solar eclipse, the apparent size of the Moon is smaller than that of the Sun by 1 per cent, the expert said.

Allying rumours that the eclipse will mark the end of coronavirus, Aniket Sule, Chairperson, Public Outreach and Education Committee of the Astronomical Society of India, said: "Solar eclipse is caused when the Moon comes in front of the Sun for a short time. As seen from Earth eclipses occur somewhere in the Earth 2 to 5 times a year. Eclipses do not impact microorganisms on Earth. Likewise there no danger in eating of stepping out during an eclipse. No mysterious rays come out of the Sun during an eclipse."

New Delhi, Jun 24: In a stinging attack on the Gandhi family of the Congress, BJP president J P Nadda on Wednesday said a dynasty and its courtiers have "grand delusions" of the opposition being about itself and stated that a "rejected and ejected" family is not equal to the entire opposition.

In his tweets, Nadda said it was the time for unity and solidarity, and the "relaunch of the scion for the nth time can wait", an apparent dig at Rahul Gandhi, who has been aggressive in his attacks on Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his handling of the border row with China.

Nadda said India lost thousands of square kilometres of land due to the "misadventures of one dynasty" and claimed that the Siachen glacier, where the Indian Army has a strong presence, was almost gone. No wonder India has rejected them, he said.'

The BJP president posted a news report to back his assertions about Siachen.

"One 'royal' dynasty and their 'loyal' courtiers have grand delusions of the Opposition being about one dynasty. A dynast throws tantrums and his courtiers peddle that fake narrative. The latest one relates to the Opposition asking questions to the Government," Nadda said.

Though he did not directly name the Gandhi family or any of its members, the reference was clear.

He said it was the opposition's right to ask questions and added that the all-party meeting called by Prime Minister Narendra Modi saw healthy deliberations, with several opposition leaders giving their valuable inputs.

They also fully supported the Centre in determining the way ahead, Nadda said.

"One family was an exception. Any guesses who," he asked.

Targeting the Gandhis, the BJP president said, "One rejected and ejected dynasty is NOT equal to the entire Opposition. One dynasty's interests are not India's interests. Today, the nation is united and supportive of our armed forces. This is the time for unity and solidarity. Relaunch of 'the scion' for the nth time can wait."

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.