Owaisi hits back at Mamata for indirectly calling him 'minority extremist'

New Delhi, Mar 16: A total of 110 cases of coronavirus, including 17 foreign nationals have been confirmed across India, Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare said on Sunday.

The maximum positive cases have been reported from Maharashtra (32), followed by Kerala (22).

The total number of passengers screened at airports is 12,76,046, the ministry said.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has declared that Europe has become the new 'epicentre' of the coronavirus pandemic that has infected more than 15 lakh people with over 6,000 deaths globally.

The virus had first emerged in China's Wuhan city in December last year.

New Delhi, Apr 24: The death toll due to the novel coronavirus rose to 723 with 37 fatalities reported since Thursday evening, while the number of cases saw a record jump of 1,752 to go up to 23,452 cases on Friday, according to the Union health ministry.

The previous highest single day increase was on April 20 when 1,540 cases were reported.

The number of active COVID-19 cases stood at 17,915 as 4,813 people were cured and discharged, and one patient migrated, the ministry said.

Thus, about 20.52 per cent of the cases have recovered so far, an official of the ministry said. 

The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) said that 23,502 samples have been confirmed positive as on April 24 at 9 am.

The health ministry's figure of 23,452 cases include 77 foreign nationals.

A total of 37 deaths were reported since Thursday evening of which 14 fatalities were reported from Maharashtra, nine from Gujarat, three from Uttar Pradesh, two each from Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Telangana and one from Karnataka, the ministry's data stated.

Of the 723 deaths, Maharashtra tops the tally with 283 fatalities, followed by Gujarat at 112, Madhya Pradesh at 83, Delhi at 50, Andhra Pradesh at 29, Rajasthan at 27 and Telengana at 26.

The death toll reached 24 in Uttar Pradesh, 20 in Tamil Nadu while Karantaka has reported 18 deaths.

Punjab has registered 16 deaths while West Bengal has reported 15 fatalities.

The disease has claimed five lives in Jammu and Kashmir, while Kerala, Jharkhand and Haryana have recorded three COVID-19 deaths each.

Bihar has reported two deaths, while Meghalaya, Himachal Pradesh, Odisha and Assam have reported one fatality each, according to the ministry data.

However, a news agency tally of the figures reported by various states as on Friday showed 23,577 cases and 743 deaths in the country.

There has been a lag in the Union health ministry figures, compared to the number of deaths announced by different states, which officials attribute to procedural delays in assigning the cases to individual states.

According to the ministry's data updated in the evening, the highest number of confirmed cases in the country are from Maharashtra at 6,430 followed by Gujarat at 2,624, Delhi at 2,376, Rajasthan at 1,964, Madhya Pradesh at 1,852 and Tamil Nadu at 1,683.

The number of COVID-19 cases has gone up to 1,604 in Uttar Pradesh, 984  in Telangana and 955 in Andhra Pradesh. The number of cases has risen to 514 in West Bengal, 448 in Kerala, 463 in Karnataka, 427 in Jammu and Kashmir,  277 in Punjab and 272 in Haryana.

Bihar has reported 176 coronavirus cases, while Odisha has 90 cases. Fifty-five people have been infected with the virus in Jharkhand and 47 in Uttarakhand. Himachal Pradesh has 40 cases, Chhattisgarh and Assam have registered 36 infections each so far.

Chandigarh has 27 COVID-19 cases, Andaman and Nicobar Islands 22 while  18 cases have been reported from Ladakh.

Meghalaya has reported 12 cases, and Goa and Puducherry have seven COVID-19 cases each.

Manipur and Tripura have two cases each, while Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh have reported a case each.

"Our figures are being reconciled with the ICMR," the ministry said on its website.

States wise distribution is subject to further verification and reconciliation, it said.

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.