Protests in University over Muslim professor’s appointment

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.

New Delhi, May 27: The government has further extended the deadline for bidding to buy its entire 52.98 per cent stake in the country's second-biggest oil refiner, Bharat Petroleum Corp Ltd (BPCL), by over one-and-a-half months to July 31.

This is the second extension for submission of expression of interest (EoI) for BPCL stake by interested bidders. The government had first invited bids showing interest in buying its stake, by May 2. It was then extended till June 13.

This has now been extended to 5 p.m. on July 31 in "view of further requests received from the interested bidders and the prevailing situation arising out of COVID-19", an official notice put up by disinvestment department DIPAM late on Tuesday said.

Accordingly, the last date for submission of written queries or preliminary information memorandum has been pushed back to June 23 from the earlier deadline of May 16.

The disinvestment in BPCL involves the government selling its entire 52.98 per cent stake in the company to a strategic investor with transfer of management control. The government has barred PSUs from bidding for BPCL and expects private sector Indian players and global MNCs to bid for its stake. The government's stake in BPCL is worth around Rs 50,000 crore.

New Delhi, Feb 4: Miffed over the controversy created by its former Union minister and Uttara Kannada MP Anantkumar Hegde by his remarks against Mahatma Gandhi, the BJP, it was learnt, has issued a show-cause notice to him. The ruling party came under heavy criticism from the opposition over its MP’s remarks. The opposition has demanded a clarification from Prime Minister Narendra Modi over his party MP’s remarks.

Often in news for his controversial remarks, Hegde, sources said, could also be barred from attending the first parliamentary party meeting of the BJP of the budget session, scheduled on Tuesday. The party had taken a similar approach against its Bhopal MP Pragya Thakur during the last winter session for praising Mahatma Gandhi’s killer Nathuram Godse. Though the BJP leadership was earlier of the view that Hegde should tender an apology over his remarks but the party top brass, it was learnt, decided that it was not enough.

The Congress on Monday launched a scathing attack on the central government over the comments of BJP Lok Sabha MP Ananthkumar Hegde on Mahatma Gandhi. The party demanded that Prime Minister Narendra Modi come to Parliament and clarify his position on BJP leader’s “objectionable” remarks.

Congress party spokesman Anand Sharma said, “we can understand that why one after the other senior BJP leaders are insulting the memory of Mahatma Gandhi. They are disparaging the national movement, the freedom struggle because they are ideological descendents of those who were not only non-participants, but, actively opposed the freedom movement.” He further added, “Parliament is in session. We demand that the Prime Minister come to the House and make his position clear. As I have said, feeds that he is unhappy and angry, we are not concerned with that. In the very ideology, mindset, thinking and language of the BJP, there is violence.”

Asserting that the BJP MP’s statement was condemnable, Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot said the leaders of the saffron party could afford to call the freedom movement a drama as they never fought for the country’s independence. “Such statements reveal their true mindset that they use Gandhi's name just for show and have no regard for him,” he said.