Only God can stop rapes, police can't do anything: UP governor

July 22, 2014

UP governorLucknow, Jul 22: In a controversial remark, Uttar Pradesh Governor Aziz Qureshi on Monday said rape cases could not be stopped even if entire police force was deployed for women's safety and only a divine intervention could check such crimes.

Qureshi's statement comes after SP supremo Mulayam Singh Yadav stirred up a controversy earlier with his statement that even with 21 crore people in Uttar Pradesh, the number of such cases were the least in the state.

"Even if the entire police force is deployed, then also rape will not end...ocurrence of rape cannot be stopped", Qureshi, the officiating governor told a TV news channel.

"It is possible perhaps if the god takes an incarnation and comes down otherwise crime cannot be controlled", Qureshi said, adding "there is a need to create public opinion, an atmosphere against crime and create fear among the culprits." Later in the evening, Qureshi sought to clarify his remarks, saying he was quoted out of context.

"For stopping crime against women there is a need to change the mentality of society and stern action need to be taken against culprits and it was for stressing this that I had stated that entire police force cannot check rape otherwise, it can stop only when god takes an incarnation and come down", he told another TV channel.

The governor's remarks have come in for severe condemnation by political parties in the state with BJP stressing that it is most "unfortunate."

"The governor issuing such a statement is most unfortunate...It lowers the dignity of his office and also harms the sentiments of the majority of people", Lucknow unit president of the BJP, Manohar Singh said. The outgoing Governor from whom the Governor-designate Ram Naik is scheduled to take over tomorrow, also expressed his displeasure over crimes being politcised.

"Crimes should not be politicised...Rape should not be an issue only for condemning the government", he said, rooting for an impartial investigation by the police so as to ensure punishment to the guilty at the earliest.

When sought his reaction on the investigations into the Mohanlalganj murder case of a woman, he said, it required to be probed further. "What I have read about the investigation in the newspapers, I am not satisfied with it... Earlier it was said that six people were involved in the crime and later it was said that it was the handiwork of only one", Qureshi said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
January 4,2020

Kota, Jan 4: Following the death of an infant in the morning, the death toll in JK Lon Hospital here has risen to 107, officials said on Saturday.

A three-member state government committee of doctors, who was sent to investigate the matter on December 23 and 24, found that Kota's JK Lone Hospital is short of beds and it requires improvement.

However, the committee gave a clean chit to the doctors for any lapses over the recent death of infants admitted there.

A Central government team reached the hospital on Saturday to take stock of the situation.

As per the government report, at least 91 infants lost their lives at the government hospital in December last year.

Meanwhile, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has issued a notice to Chief Secretary of Rajasthan to submit a detailed report within 4 weeks about the steps being taken to address the issue.

The Commission also asked the Chief Secretary to ensure that such deaths of the children do not recur in future due to lack of infrastructure and health facilities at the hospitals.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 16,2020

New Delhi, Mar 16: Reliance Group Chairman Anil Ambani has been summoned by the ED in connection with its money laundering probe against Yes Bank promoter Rana Kapoor and others, officials said on Monday.

They said Ambani was asked to depose at the Enforcement Directorate office in Mumbai on Monday as his group companies are among the big entities whose loans went bad after borrowing from the crisis-hit bank.

The officials said Ambani, 60, has sought exemption from appearance on some personal grounds and he may be issued a new date.

Ambani's group companies are stated to have taken loans of about Rs 12,800 crore from the bank that turned NPAs.

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had said in a March 6 press conference that the Anil Ambani Group, Essel, ILFS, DHFL and Vodafone were among the stressed corporates Yes Bank had exposure to.

Officials said promoters of all the big companies who had taken large loans from the beleaguered bank which later turned bad are being summoned for questioning in the case to take investigation forward.

Ambani's statement will be recorded under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) upon deposition, they said.

Kapoor, 62, is at present in ED custody after he was arrested by the central probe agency early this month.

The ED has accused Kapoor, his family members and others of laundering "proceeds of crime" worth Rs 4,300 crore by receiving alleged kickbacks in lieu of extending big loans through their bank that later turned NPA.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 1,2020

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.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.