Rain wreaks havoc in Himachal, Punjab; 8 dead

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, Mar 9: India's Yes Bank will not be merged with State Bank of India, which is set to infuse funds in the beleaguered lender, the newly appointed administrator leading the rescue plan said in a television interview on Monday.

"There is absolutely no question of a merger," Prashant Kumar, the administrator, told the CNBC TV18 channel.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on Thursday took control of Yes Bank, after the lender - which is laden with bad debts - failed to raise the capital it needs to stay above mandated regulatory requirements.

Placing Yes Bank under a 30-day moratorium, the central bank imposed limits on withdrawals to protect depositors and said it would work on a revival plan. The move spooked depositors, who rushed to withdraw funds from the bank.

Kumar, a former finance chief at SBI, assured depositors their money was safe and that the moratorium on Yes Bank might be lifted much before the deadline on April 3 and normal banking operations might resume as early as Friday.

He also mentioned that the withdrawal limit of Yes Bank may be removed by March 15, 2020.

SBI Chairman Rajnish Kumar said on Saturday the state-run bank would need to invest up to 24.5 billion rupees ($331 million) to buy a 49% stake in Yes Bank as part of the initial phase of the rescue deal, adding that the survival of troubled lender was a "must".

Mar 18: Madhya Pradesh Congress Party sought in the Supreme Court on Wednesday that the trust vote in the state assembly be deferred till by-polls for the vacant seats are concluded, saying "heavens are not going to fall" if its government led by Kamal Nath is allowed to remain in office till then.

A bench, comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta, was hearing cross petitions filed by former Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister and senior BJP leader Shivraj Singh Chouhan and MP Congress on the ongoing political crisis in the state after 22 rebel MLAs of the ruling combine purportedly offered to resign.

"Heavens are not going to fall if Congress government is allowed to continue till by-polls and the Shivraj Singh Chouhan's government must not be saddled on the people," said senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for Congress.

"Let them face re-elections and then hold trust vote... You (BJP) have engineered it. My petition raises the frontal attack that you have launched a conspiracy," he said.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Chouhan, vociferously opposed the submission saying that the party which killed the democracy by imposing emergency in 1975 is now referring to "lofty ideals" of B R Ambedkar.

He said that after the resignations of 22 Congress MLAs, out of which six resignations have been accepted, the state government should not be allowed to continue even for a day.

"It is lust of power because of which all these lofty arguments are being made.

"It is unheard of that a person who had lost majority says that he wants to continue for six months and there should be re-election before the trust vote.

Rohatgi said the Kamal Nath government wanted to stay in power by hook or crook.

Earlier in the day, the Madhya Pradesh Congress told the bench that a probe is needed on the resignation letters of its rebel MLAs that have been submitted by BJP leaders to the Speaker of the state Assembly.

Dave said the Governor has no business to send messages at night asking the Chief Minister or Speaker to hold floor test.

"The Speaker is the ultimate master and the Madhya Pradesh Governor is overriding him," he said.

The party alleged that resignations of its rebel MLAs were extracted by force and coercion and they did not act as per their free will.

It also said that its rebel MLAs were taken away in chartered flights and are currently incommunicado in a resort arranged by the BJP.

The advancing of arguments will resume after lunch.

The Madhya Pradesh Congress Legislature party (MPCLP) had Tuesday moved the Supreme Court seeking direction to the Centre and the BJP-led Karnataka government to grant it access to communicate with its rebel MLAs allegedly kept at Bengaluru.

Earlier on Tuesday, the court had asked the Kamal Nath government in the state earlier in the day to respond by Wednesday to a plea by senior BJP leader Shivraj Singh Chouhan seeking immediate floor test in the Assembly.

MPCLP, in its plea filed by Govind Singh, an MLA and chief whip of Congress legislature party, urged the apex court to declare as illegal the action of the Centre, Karnataka government and the MP BJP of illegally confining its MLAs in Bangaluru.

The plea, filed through senior lawyer Devdutt Kamat, said the trust vote would be a "sham" if 22 MLAs did not take part in it as almost 10 per cent of constituencies go unrepresented.

The plea filed by Chouhan and nine BJP lawmakers was moved in the top court just after the Speaker cited coronavirus concerns and adjourned the House till March 26 without taking the floor test apparently defying the directions of Governor Lalji Tandon.

The plea alleged that the Speaker, the Chief Minister and the Principal Secretary of the Assembly have "flagrantly violated the constitutional principles and have deliberately and wilfully defied the directions" issued by the governor asking the government to prove the majority on the floor of the house on March 16 when when the budget session was to commence.

On Saturday night, Tandon wrote to Nath asking him to seek a trust vote in the Assembly soon after the Governor's address on Monday, saying his government was in minority.

After the Speaker accepted the resignation of six Congress MLAs on Saturday, the party now has 108 legislators.

These include 16 rebel legislators who have also put in their papers but their resignations are yet to be accepted.

The BJP has 107 seats in the House, which now has an effective strength of 222, with the majority mark being 112.