PFI backs Dalit agitation against dilution of SC/ST Act

May 20: Prime Minister K P Sharma Oli on Tuesday asserted that Lipulekh, Kalapani and Limpiyadhura belong to Nepal and vowed to "reclaim" them from India through political and diplomatic efforts, as his Cabinet endorsed a new political map showing the three areas as Nepalese territory.

Addressing Parliament, Oli said the territories belong to Nepal “but India has made it a disputed area by keeping its Army there”. “Nepalis were blocked from going there after India stationed its Army,” he said.

“India has deployed its troops in Kalapani since 1962 and our rulers in the past hesitated to raise the issue,” he said, asserting, “We will reclaim and get them back.”

The prime minister asserted that the Nepal government will make political and diplomatic efforts to reclaim the territory.

Oli also expressed the hope that India will “follow the path of truth, shown by Satya Meva Jayate, which is mentioned in the Ashoka Chakra, the national symbol of India”.

The prime minister’s remarks came a day after the Cabinet headed by him endorsed a new political map showing Lipulekh, Kalapani and Limpiyadhura under Nepal’s territory.

Foreign Minister Pradeep Kumar Gyawali said the official map of Nepal will soon be made public by the Ministry of Land Management. The move announced by Gyawali came weeks after he said that efforts were on to resolve the border issue with India through diplomatic initiatives.

Nepal''s ruling Nepal Communist Party lawmakers have also tabled a special resolution in Parliament demanding return of Kalapani, Limpiyadhura and Lipulekh to Nepal.

The Lipulekh pass is a far western point near Kalapani, a disputed border area between Nepal and India. Both India and Nepal claim Kalapani as an integral part of their territory - India as part of Uttarakhand’s Pithoragarh district and Nepal as part of Dharchula district.

Gyawali last week summoned the Indian Ambassador Vinay Mohan Kwatra and handed over a diplomatic note to him to protest against the construction of a key road connecting the Lipulekh pass with Dharchula in Uttarakhand.

India has said that the recently-inaugurated road section in Pithoragarh district in Uttarakhand lies completely within its territory. Indian Army chief Gen MM Naravane last week said that there were reasons to believe that Nepal objected to India''s newly-inaugurated road linking Lipulekh Pass with Dharchula in Uttarakhand at the behest of "someone else", in an apparent reference to a possible role by China on the matter.

He said there was no dispute whatsoever between India and Nepal in the area and road laid was very much within the Indian side.

The 80-KM-long strategically crucial road at a height of 17,000 KM along the border with China in Uttarakhand was thrown open by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh earlier this month.

Nepal has raised objection to the inauguration of the road, saying the "unilateral act" was against the understanding reached between the two countries on resolving the border issues. China on Tuesday said the Kalapani border issue is between India and Nepal as it hoped that the two neighbours could refrain from "unilateral actions" and properly resolve their disputes through friendly consultations.

After the endorsement of Nepal’s new map senior ruling party leader and member of Nepal Communist Party Standing Committee Ganesh Shah said the new move may escalate unnecessary tension between Nepal and India at a time when the country is fighting the coronavirus.

"The Nepal government should soon start a dialogue with India to resolve the matter through political and diplomatic moves," he said.

The new map includes 335-km land area including Limpiyadhura in the Nepalese territory.

The new map was drawn on the basis of the Sugauli Treaty of 1816 signed between Nepal and then the British India government and other relevant documents, which suggests Limpiyadhura, from where the Kali river originated, is Nepal''s border with India, The Kathmandu Post quoted an official at the Ministry of Land Reform and Management as saying.

India and Nepal are at a row after the Indian side issued a new political map incorporating Kalapani and Lipulekh on its side of the border in October last year.

The tension further escalated after India inaugurated the road link connecting Kailash Mansarovar, a holy pilgrimage site situated at Tibet, China, that passes through the territory belonging to Nepal.

New Delhi, Mar 11: Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of “destabilising” the elected Congress government in Madhya Pradesh.

Gandhi also said the PM may have “missed” noticing the 35 per cent crash in global oil prices and asked him to pass on the benefit to Indians by slashing petrol prices.

“Hey @PMOIndia, while you were busy destabilising an elected Congress Govt, you may have missed noticing the 35 per cent crash in global oil prices.

“Could you please pass on the benefit to Indians by slashing #petrol prices to under 60 per litre? Will help boost the stalled economy,” the former Congress chief said on twitter.

Congress' prominent youth leader Jyotiraditya Scindia quit the party on Tuesday and appeared set to join the BJP amid a rebellion in Madhya Pradesh by his supporters, pushing the 15-month-old Kamal Nath government to the brink of collapse.

On Tuesday morning, as much of India was celebrating Holi, Scindia met senior BJP leader and Union Home Minister Amit Shah, following which he called on Prime Minister Narendra Modi at his 7, Lok Kalyan Marg residence.

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.