At poll rally, Yogi calls Indian Army 'Modi ji ki sena'

Bhadohi, Feb 11: With just two days left for the State Budget Session, a widow from Uttar Pradesh''s Bhadohi district has accused BJP MLA Ravindranath Tripathi and six others of sexual harassment over the years, the police said.

The incident is likely to cause considerable embarrassment to the ruling Yogi Adityanath government.

Bhadohi Superintendent of Police (SP) Ram Badan Singh said: "The woman, whose husband died in 2007, met the BJP MLA Ravindranath Tripathi''s nephew in 2014. She said that she was physically exploited by him for many years on the pretext of marriage."

The complainant also said that the nephew then got her lodged in a Bhadohi hotel for about a month during the 2017 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections, "where she was raped by the MLA and his other family members".

The case has been handed over to the Additional Superintendent of Police for further investigations.

A case is yet to be registered.

The Uttar Pradesh Budget Session starts from Thursday.

New Delhi, Feb 6: DMK Lok Sabha member M K Kanimozhi on Wednesday challenged popular actor Rajinikanth to raise his voice for Muslims, saying they have "already been affected" by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and are protesting on streets against the law.

Reacting to his statements earlier in the day in Chennai that "CAA is no threat to Muslims" and "if they face trouble I will be the first person to raise voice for them," Kanimozhi, daughter of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi, told news agency that "Muslims in India have already been affected due to CAA".

"Let him (Rajinikanth) come forward and raise his voice for the affected Muslims", she said.

She said the members of the community have been protesting as the law leaves out Muslims.,

Asked whether Rajinikanth, through this pro-CAA statement, was moving closer to the BJP, the MP from Tuticorin said, "What he has said is no different from the BJP's narrative which we have been listening in parliament for the last few days".

Under CAA, members of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities who came to India from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan till December 31, 2014, to escape religious persecution there will not be treated as illegal immigrants, and be given Indian citizenship.

Rajinikanth had asserted that the legislation did not pose any threat to Muslims. He wondered as to how Muslims, who chose to stay back in India following Partition will be sent out of the country. Besides, the central government had assured that Indian people will have no issues in view of CAA, he noted.

He charged that some political parties were instigating people against the CAA for their selfish interests.

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.