PFI national council appeals judiciary to protect religious freedom, personal laws

Media Release
October 12, 2018

New Delhi, Oct 12: The National Executive Council (NEC) meeting of Popular Front of India held at its headquarters in New Delhi stated that a series of seemingly liberalist and progressive judgments came from the apex court in recent months intensifies the apprehension among the religious minorities that they may pave the way for Uniform Civil Code.

A highly impactful judgment given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was on the issue of religious conversion of Akhila to Hadiya and her subsequent marriage with a Muslim. On 9 April 2018, setting aside a Kerala High Court judgment which annulled the marriage, Supreme Court said that “the right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution”.  It was one of the most important judicial interventions in recent history of the country to protect the fundamental rights of ordinary citizens against powerful right wing forces who tried to block it.

The state interference in religious affairs is against the spirit Indian constitution. Consequently, every community has the freedom to practice their religious customs and personal laws. However, the judgment that upheld the 1994 Allahabad High Court verdict on the status of Mosque in Islam and on the entry of  women in Shabarimala temple in Kerala were alarming interference in the religious affairs of the respective communities. At a critical juncture when the country is awaiting justice for the illegally occupied and demolished Babri Masjid,a judgment negating of essentiality of Masjid in Islam does not give a positive message. The concern that such judgments would be misused by a communally motivated government was reaffirmed by the passing of Triple Talaq ordinance in the name of Supreme Court verdict. Hence it is high time the Supreme Court come forward taking a clear stand that the Ayodhya Masjid-Mandir title suit would be dealt with as per records and not according to any religious faith.  This has become an onus on the part of highest judiciary in the context of consistent statements by some unscrupulous leaders that Ram Mandir would be constructed on the site of demolished Babri Masjid at any cost.

The judgments decriminalizing homosexuality and adultery claim to protect individual freedom and privacy. It may be interpreted that Supreme Court is merely imitating permissive values and concepts, which have already resulted in the decline of family and other social systems. The same enthusiasm was not seen in protecting personal freedom and privacy of individuals while ratifying the government decision on Aadhaar. The majority judgment failed to see the danger in linking every citizenship rights and availing of government welfare schemes and services with Aadhar. Though most of the recent majority judgments were presented in the superficial language decorated with liberalism and progressiveness, they are borne with far reaching consequences ruinous to individual, family and society.

The National Executive Council of Popular Front applauded the commitment of the Supreme Court that is being repeatedly shown in all available contexts that the Indian constitution and its values are supreme. The meeting observed that at a time when overt calls and covert attempts are being made by those who control the centers of power to subvert the democratic and secular foundation of our constitution, this uncompromising constitutional commitment must be  seen as the ultimate hope of India.

The three days meeting of the apex body of the organization discussed the socio-political situations prevailing in the country. The meeting also reviewed the activities of the organization in different states.  The determination and steadfastness shown by Popular Front   leaders and activists of Jharkhand state in the aftermath of organization’s ban was commendable.  The meeting has applauded the High Court decision that revoked the ban and urged the state government to ensure freedom of association in Jharkhand.  The proposal by the Community Development Department to allot Rs. 15 million for post-metric scholarship during the academic year 2018-19 was approved.

Chairman E Abubacker presided over the meeting. Vice chairman O M A Salam, General Secretary Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Secretaries Abdul Wahid Sait, Anis Ahmed and other NEC members attended the meeting.

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.
News Network
March 24,2020

Ahmedabad, Mar 24: The Gujarat police has detained 426 people in the last 24 hours for violating lockdown rules in force in the state to combat the novel coronavirus outbreak, a senior official said on Tuesday.

They include those who came out despite being advised home quarantine, state Director General of Police Shivanand Jha said.

"The lockdown met with around 90 per cent success. We are taking strict measures to implement the lockdown in the remaining 10-15 per cent areas. We have lodged 238 cases related to the violation of police notification and 127 cases related to quarantine rule violation. In all, we have detained 426 persons across the state," Jha told reporters in Gandhinagar.

"For better implementation of the lockdown and to address issues concerning people, we have set up a dedicated 24-hour control room and appointed two additional DGP rank officers to supervise operations. Three teams under them would work to resolve issues across the state," said Jha.

He said police commissioners and districts SPs have been asked to enforce the lockdown in an effective manner.

Essential services like vegetable and milk shops are allowed to remain open, he said, and asked people not to flock in large numbers to such shops.

The state has so far reported 33 COVID-19 cases, and one person has died of the infection.

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
May 13,2020

New Delhi, May 13: Vice President M. Venkaiah Naidu on Wednesday said that Prime Minister Narendra Modi's announcement of Rs 20 lakh crore stimulus package "will go a long way in overcoming challenges" posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

"Welcome the Rs. 20 lakh crore stimulus package announced by the Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Bhai Modi Ji to revive economy, boost efficiency of various sectors through reforms & make India self reliant and resilient. #AtmaNirbharBharatAbhiyan," the Vice President tweeted.

Calling the reforms as the "need of the hour", he further said: "Bold reforms are the need of the hour to realize the dream of #AtmanirbharBharat."

Expressing confidence in the five-pillar approach, he said that it would help promote local industries "while making India face global competition effectively".

"I am confident that a focused approach on the five pillars- Economy, Infrastructure, Technology driven System, Vibrant Demography & Demand--will promote local industries led growth while making India face global competition effectively. #AtmaNirbharBharatAbhiyan," he said.

"I am certain this timely economic package will go long way in overcoming challenges posed by the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic. #AtmaNirbharBharatAbhiyan #IndiaFightsCorona," he wrote on the micro-blogging site.

The Prime Minister had on Tuesday announced Rs 20 lakh crore special economic package for the country to become 'self-reliant' and deal with COVID-19.

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.