Over 45 Dead in Uttar Pradesh Floods, Rivers Flowing Above Danger Level

New Delhi, May 19: Spitting at workplace will be punishable with fine, the Personnel Ministry has said, citing the national directives for COVID-19 management.

In an order issued to all central government departments, it has asked their heads to ensure strict compliance of this and other directives in this regard.

This order is likely to bring about changes in and around government and private work places, where one can easily spot stains of 'pan' and 'gutka' spitted at some of the corners of walls or areas not frequented by many employees/public.

"Spitting in public and work places shall be punishable with fine, as may be prescribed in accordance with its laws, rules and regulations by the state/union territory local authority," said the national directives issued by the Home Ministry and shared by the Personnel Ministry with all central government departments.

It said wearing 'face cover' is compulsory in all public and work places.

In additional directives for the work places, the ministry said as far as possible, the practice from work from home should be followed.

"Staggering of work/business hours shall be followed in offices, work places, shops, markets and industrial and commercial establishments. Provision for thermal scanning, hand wash and sanitiser will be made at all entry and exit points and common areas," the directives said.

Frequent sanitization of the entire workplace, common facilities and all points which come into human contact e.g. door handles etc., shall be ensured, including between shifts, it said.

"All persons in charge of work places shall ensure social distancing through adequate distance between workers, adequate gaps between shifts, staggering the lunch breaks of staff, etc," the directive said.

The Centre on Monday asked 50 per cent of its junior employees, below the level of deputy secretary, to join work in office.

Till now, only 33 per cent of such employees were asked to attend office due to the novel coronavirus lockdown.

Central government employees were asked to work from home due to the lockdown that came into force from March 25.

All officers of the level of deputy secretary and above have already been asked to attend office on all working days.

Malappuram, Jun 5: A lawyer has filed a complaint with Superintendent of Police, Malappuram against BJP leader Maneka Gandhi and others for allegedly indulging in a hate campaign against Malappuram district and its residents.

Advocate Subhash Chandran, who hails from Malappuram, on Thursday filed a complaint seeking registration of FIR against former Union Minister Maneka Gandhi and others for allegedly indulging in a hate campaign against Malappuram and the residents of the district.

The complainant alleged that the campaign against the district was very derogatory and with a malafide intent.

The complaint stated that the unfortunate death of an elephant in Mannarkkad, Palakkad District dominated social media conversations in the last two days but a group of people deliberately added communal colour into it only to spread hatred against Malappuram, which is a Muslim majority district in Kerala.

It also stated that the elephant in question died on May 29, 2020, in Palakkad not in Malappuram as claimed by a section in social media users. Prominent news outlets operating from the South also reported that the elephant died after consuming explosive-laden pineapple in Palakkad.

The complaint also named political commentator, Tarek Fatah, for allegedly starting a hate campaign against the district and the minority community.

It alleged that Union Minister Maneka Gandhi made false and frivolous allegations against the district of Malappuram and its residents.

Chandran, through the complaint, prayed to the district police chief to register an FIR against Maneka Gandhi and others under Section 153A, 120B etc. of Indian Penal Code.

An elephant had died after she ate the pineapple stuffed with crackers and forest officials said that it died standing in river Velliyar after it suffered an injury in its lower jaw.

The elephant was seen standing in the river with her mouth and trunk in the water for some relief from the pain after the explosive-filled fruit exploded in her mouth.

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.