PM Modi chairs high-level meet on Kashmir

Kolkata, July 13: Debendra Nath Roy, a member of the West Bengal legislative assembly (MLA) from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), was found dead near his house in north Bengal’s Uttar Dinajpur district on Monday morning.

BJP leaders and his family members have alleged that he was murdered. 

BJP president JP Nadda has expressed “shock” at Roy’s “deplorable and suspected heinous killing” and condemned the incident.

He questioned the rise of “gunda raj” in West Bengal under Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s watch amid the worsening law and order in the state, which is slated to hold assembly polls next year, where the BJP is seen to be the primary challenger to the CM’s citadel.

“The suspected heinous killing of Debendra Nath Ray, BJP MLA from Hemtabad in West Bengal, is extremely shocking and deplorable. This speaks volumes of the gunda raj and failure of law and order in the Mamata Banerjee-led government. People will not forgive such a government in the future. We strongly condemn the incident,” he tweeted.

The BJP has demanded a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the lawmaker’s unnatural death.

His body was found in the balcony of a shop near his house at Bondol in Hemtabad, Uttar Dinajpur district, on Monday morning.

“The body has been sent for autopsy. We are investigating the case. No one has been detained for questioning or arrested so far,” said a police official from Uttar Dinajpur district, requesting anonymity.

“Roy was murdered. The way his body was found suggests that it was a premeditated murder and the accused tried to pass it off as a suicide. The ruling TMC (Trinamool Congress) is involved in his murder,” alleged Rahul Sinha, national secretary, BJP.

The TMC, however, refuted the BJP’s allegations.

“I heard that he (Roy) died by suicide. Police are investigating the case. Let the truth come out. If he has been murdered, then the culprits should be identified and punished as per law,” said Kanhaiyalal Agarwal, a TMC leader from Uttar Dinajpur district.

BJP leaders said some people had called Roy around 1 am on Monday and he went out of his home. His body was found on Monday morning.

Roy had won the Bengal assembly elections from Hemtabad on a Communist Party of India (Marxist) ticket in 2016, but joined the BJP last year.

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.

More and more Indians have become better prepared in the last one month, as far as stocking of their ration, medicine or money is concerned, according to the IANS-CVoter COVID-19 Tracker.

With the second leg of the lockdown half way through and Prime Minister Narendra Modi saying it's a long haul, 57.2% respondents said they have less than three weeks of stock while 43.3% said they have a stock that will last beyond that

However, if one breaks into weeks, most respondents said they are prepared for a week's time. 24.5% respondents said they have ration, medicine or money to last a week. This is closely followed by 21.9 % respondents saying they are ready for a month.

Meanwhile, 20.4 % said they are ready for a couple of weeks. There are 15.8 % who said they are ready for more than a month with food, ration and medicine. A tiny 5.6 % said they are ready with three weeks of stock.

However, there is 12.3% who still seem to live on the edge with less than a week's preparation.

But, the biggest takeaway from the IANS-CVoter COVID-19 Tracker is that in the last one month, a massive segment of society realised that the fight is long and the preparation should also be to last that long.

o put things into context, on March 16 when the tracker started, a whopping 77.1% said they have stock to last for less than a week. More than a month later on April 21, that number jumped to just 12.3%, which essentially means, people have become better prepared for a long-hauled lockdown period.

Similarly, on April 21, a sizable 21.9% respondents claimed they are ready with ration and medicine that will last them a month. On March 16, not even one respondent could claim they have a month's stock. In fact till March 22, just ahead of the announcement of the first lockdown, no respondent the IANS-CVoter tracker said that they have a month's preparation.

Similarly, when the tracker started, 9.9% said they simply ‘don't know'. As on April 21, that number is a big zero.