PM Modi turns emotional after Dehradun woman says, 'I have seen God in you'

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.

Mumbai, May 31: Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut on Sunday alleged that the event held in Ahmedabad to welcome US President Donald Trump in February was responsible for the spread of coronavirus in Gujarat and later in Mumbai and Delhi, which some of his delegates had visited.

Raut also hit out at the Centre saying that the lockdown was implemented without any planning, but now the responsibility of lifting the curbs was left to the states.

The Sena MP said that despite the opposition BJP's attempts to pull down the Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government, there was no threat to it as its survival is the 'majboori' (compulsion) of all the three ruling allies- Sena, NCP and Congress.

"It can't be denied that the spread of coronavirus in Gujarat was because of the massive public gathering held to welcome US President Donald Trump. Some of the delegates, who accompanied Trump, also visited Mumbai, Delhi, which led to the spread of the virus," Raut said in his weekly column in Shiv Sena mouthpiece 'Saamana'.

On February 24, Trump along with Prime Minister Narendra Modi had taken part in a road-show in Ahmedabad, which was attended by thousands of people. After the road- show, the two leaders had addressed a gathering of over one lakh people at Motera cricket stadium, run by Gujarat Cricket Association (GCA).

Gujarat had reported its first coronavirus cases on March 20, when samples of a man from Rajkot and a woman from Surat tested positive for the disease.

Raut said that any move to pull down the Uddhav Thackeray-led MVA government and impose President's rule in the state citing its failure to curb the coronavirus pandemic would be suicidal.

"The state had witnessed how President's rule was imposed and lifted as per will six months ago," he said.

"If the handling of coronavirus cases is the basis of imposing President's rule, then it should be done in at least 17 states, including the BJP-ruled ones. Even the central government has failed to curb the pandemic as it had no planning to fight the virus," he said.

"The lockdown was imposed without any planning and now without any plan, the responsibility of lifting it has been left to the states. This chaos will further worsen the crisis," he said.

The Sena MP said that Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has made an excellent analysis of how the lockdown has failed.

"It is shocking that people can indulge in politics by demanding President's rule in Maharashtra for the rise in the coronavirus cases," he said.

BJP MP Narayan Rane had recently met Maharashtra Governor B S Koshyari and demanded imposition of President's rule in view of the the Shiv Sena-led state government's "failure" in tackling the coronavirus pandemic. However, the BJP had later said that it was not trying to destabilise the government.

Speaking about the stability of the government, Raut said that the survival of the MVA government was the 'majboori' (compulsion) of each of the three alliance partners.

"Even if there are internal conflicts among the ruling partners, there is no threat to the government as the allies know that its survival is the 'majboori' of each one of them," Raut said.

He said that the Devendra Fadnavis-led government, in which the BJP and Shiv Sena shared power, saw internal conflicts between the ruling allies, but it completed its full five-year term.

Slamming Fadnavis, who is now the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly, for predicting downfall of the MVA government saying it will fall on its own due to its internal bickering.

"If the Fadnavis government, which witnessed deep internal conflicts between BJP and Sena, didn't fall, how can this one collapse? The Fadnavis government survived despite the (Sena) ministers carrying their resignation letters in their pockets," Raut wrote.

Fadnavis, in an online media interaction held earlier recently, said he had no intention to destabilise the MVA government and said it would collapse on its own.

"What Fadnavis means is that all attempts (of the BJP) to create discord among the three allies and break the MLAs has failed. Now the opposition hopes that something would happen among the allies and the government would be fall apart," he said.

Raut said NCP president Sharad Pawar is the prominent leader, who laid the foundation stone of the "Thackeray sarkar", and only he can predict the future of the government.

"He continues to say the government is stable and even the Congress is not going anywhere. MVA legislators are not up for sale in horse-trading. Hence, if the opposition says that the government will fall, it is wrong," he said.