Onlookers film drunk man raping Vizag woman in broad daylight

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, Jan 18: Two men accused of kidnapping and brutally raping a five-year-old girl in Delhi in 2013 have been held guilty by a court in the national capital today. The POCSO court, which will announce the quantum of punishment on January 30, said, "In our society the minor girls are worshipped as goddess on certain occasions but in the present case the victim child had experienced exceptional depravity and extreme brutality."

"The crime against the victim was committed in a most grotesque and revolting manner and the collective conscience of the community was shaken," the court added while holding the accused - Manoj Shah and Pradeep Kumar - guilty.

The assault which took place just four months after Nirbhaya's brutal rape had grabbed headlines with its shocking details. The girl, who was named Gudiya by sections of the media, went missing and the police told her parents to look for her themselves. She was found two days later, tied in the basement of the east Delhi house she lived in with traces of candles and bottles inside her private parts.

The convicts had fled after raping Gudiya and shoving a candle and bottle inside her private parts, leaving her at Manoj Shah's room, after believing the five-year-old to be dead. The child was rescued 40 hours later on April 17, 2013.

Manoj Shah and Pradeep Kumar were arrested by Delhi police separately from Muzaffarpur and Darbhanga in Bihar respectively in 2013. The charge sheet was filed on May 24 that year and charges were framed by the court on July 11. But, it took more than five years to complete the recording of the statement of 57 prosecution witnesses in the POCSO court.

"Though the trial should have been completed in two years, we are happy we got justice," said the father of the girl.

One of the convicts, Manoj Shah, allegedly assaulted some reporters while being taken out of the courtroom.

New Delhi, May 27: With 6,387 new coronavirus cases in the last 24 hours, India's count of COVID-19 rose to 1,51,767 on Wednesday, said the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

170 people have also died in the last 24 hours due to the infection.

Currently, there are 83,004 active cases while 64,425 COVID-19 positive patients have been cured/discharged and one has migrated. So far, a total of 4,337 deaths have taken place across the country.

Among all states, Maharashtra has the highest number of COVID-19 cases with 54,758. Tamil Nadu has 17,728 cases with Gujarat at 14,821 cases. The national capital has 14,465 reported cases of coronavirus.