Prominent Muslim leader, former minster Qamarul Islam passes away

Bengaluru, May 23: SSLC and PUC students residing in containment zones will not be able to write the exams scheduled to be held in June and July, respectively, but will be given opportunity to write the supplementary examination and treated as fresh candidates.

Primary and Secondary Education Minister S. Suresh Kumar announced this at a press conference on Friday.

In turn, officials in the Department of Primary and Secondary Education will start collecting the list of students in containment zones. However, they are worried since the list of containment zones is dynamic and a particular locality can be declared a containment zone even the night before the examination.

“If any examination centre is located in the containment zone, then we can change the centre and move it to a non-containment zone. However, if a student resides in a zone that is declared containment zone just before the exam, there is no option but for the person to skip the exam,” an official said.

Officials of the department are worried about another scenario as well. “There is a chance that midway through the examination, an area is becomes a containment zone. Then some students may write a few papers and give the rest a miss. Implementation at the district- and block-levels will be a challenge,” said an official.

Sources said that the department is working out several situations that may arise and trying to work on providing practical solutions to the students.

Around 5.98 lakh students have registered for the second pre-university English examination that is scheduled to be held on June 18. As many as 8.48 lakh students have registered for the SSLC examination scheduled to be held between June 25 and 4 July. Currently, there are 261 containment zones in Karnataka that have 5.49 lakh people residing in these zones.

Meanwhile, the Karnataka Secondary Education and Examination Board has decided to ensure that only 18 students are seated in a classroom to write the SSLC examination. This is to ensure that social distancing is maintained in the exam hall.

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.

Mangaluru, Jun 3: The district administrations of Dakshina Kannada and Kasaragod have issued standard operating procedures (SOP) for the movement of people between two neighbouring districts that fall under two different states.

Even though thousands of people used to commute between these two districts due to employment, education and other reasons every day, the travel has been banned for over two months due to covid lockdown.

Dakshina Kannada DC Sindhu B Rupesh has assured that travel passes will be issued for working professionals/students who have to commute every day.

Those who wish to travel to DK district from Kasargod have to register on https://bit.ly/dkdpermit for daily pass.

The pass applicant should mention the travel destinations, and the complete work address in DK. He/she should also upload Aadhaar card, proof of workplace. On receipt of the applications, the AC of Mangaluru division will issue the pass which will be valid till June 30.

The DC said that the pass details will be recorded at Talapady check post daily. Those who fail to report during the exit from Dakshina Kannada will be subjected to quarantine by the taluk administration and penal action will be initiated as per Epidemic Act, she warned.

Thermal screening of all persons entering DK will be conducted at the checkpost. Only those who are asymptomatic will be allowed to enter.

As per the SOP issued by Kasargod District Collector, those who wish to commute between these two districts have to register in COVID-19 Jagratha portal under the emergency pass category and the applicant has to mention the reason as “inter-state travel on a daily basis."