Pinarayi Vijayan sworn in as Kerala Chief Minister

New Delhi, Feb 27: Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra on Thursday attacked the government over the transfer of Delhi High Court Judge S Muralidhar, saying the Centre's attempts to "muzzle" justice and "break people's faith in an upright judiciary are deplorable".

Delhi HC Judge S Muralidhar was transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, days after the Supreme Court collegium made the recommendation.

"The midnight transfer of Justice Muralidhar isn't shocking given the current dispensation, but it is certainly sad & shameful," Priyanka Gandhi tweeted. "Millions of Indians have faith in a resilient & upright judiciary, the government’s attempts to muzzle justice & break their faith are deplorable," she said.

The judge was hearing the Delhi violence case and the late evening notification came on the day when a bench headed by him expressed "anguish" over the Delhi Police's failure to register FIRs against alleged hate speeches by three BJP leaders.

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.

Financially troubled Yes Bank on Saturday reported a standalone net loss of ₹ 18,560.31 crore for the third quarter of the financial year 2019-20. This is amongst the biggest losses reported by the India Inc.

At present, the private lender is under a moratorium and is controlled by the office of the administrator appointed by the RBI.

The bank had reported a net profit of ₹1,001.85 crore during the corresponding period of the previous financial year.

Besides, the bank's total income fell to Rs 6,268.50 crore from Rs 8,849.81 crore earned during the October-December quarter of the previous fiscal.

On consolidated basis, Yes Bank reported a net loss of ₹18,564.24 crore for the December quarter from a net profit of Rs 1,000.57 crore in the corresponding period of the previous fiscal.

The independent auditor's review report on the consolidated results pointed out that there is a "material uncertainty related to going concern" of the bank.

"The said assumption of going concern is dependent upon the degree of success of the final reconstruction scheme, the quantum of capital infused into the bank and the bank's ability to stabalise its deposit balances post withdrawal of the moratorium by the RBI. Our conclusion is not modified in respect of this matter," the auditor said.

Furthermore, the bank recognised additional loans of ₹ 5,150.2 crore as NPAs and related provisioning requirements of ₹772.5 crore for the quarter ended December 31, 2019.

The bank has recognised an additional provisions of ₹15,422.0 crore in the quarter ended December 31, 2019.

Last week, the RBI placed Yes Bank under moratorium and capped the withdrawal limit at ₹50,000 till next Wednesday.

Additionally, the central bank also superseded Yes Bank's board of directors and appointed former SBI CFO Prashant Kumar as its administrator.

Meanwhile, Kumar has been appointed as the new Chief Executive Officer of the financially troubled lender. He will take over his new responsibilities once the moratorium on the stressed lender is lifted on Wednesday.

Apart from Kumar, Sunil Mehta, former non-executive Chairman of Punjab National Bank, will take over as the non-executive Chairman of Yes Bank.

Other board members include Mahesh Krishnamurthy and Atul Bheda, both as non-executive Directors.

Additionally, six private lenders have joined the SBI to rescue Yes Bank with Federal Bank committing ₹300 crore by subscribing to 30 crore shares of ₹2 each at a premium of ₹8 per equity share.

The six private lenders have now committed an investment of ₹3,700 crore in the cash-strapped private sector bank.

On Friday, ICICI Bank and Housing Development Finance Corporation (HDFC) Ltd had announced that they will be investing ₹1,000 crore each in Yes Bank's equity. Axis Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank will be investing ₹ 600 crore and ₹500 crore, respectively, while Bandhan Bank will invest ₹300 crore.

The SBI board has already approved up to 49 per cent stake purchase in Yes Bank, as per the RBI's reconstruction scheme for the lender. It had said on Thursday that an investment of ₹7,250 crore would be made in Yes Bank to pick up₹ 725 crore equity shares.