Religious procession on Milad-Un-Nabi not prohibited: UP cops

New Delhi, Feb 12: Delhi Chief Minister-designate Arvind Kejriwal was on Wednesday elected as the leader of AAP legislative party, a day after he led the party to an emphatic victory in the Delhi Assembly elections.

Kejriwal was elected as the AAP legislative party leader during a meeting called by him with the newly-elected party MLAs. The meeting was held at the AAP chief's residence.

Atishi, AAP's winning candidate from Kalkaji constituency said after the meeting, "It is definitely a validation of the work that has been done by AAP in the last five years, be it education, health care, water or electricity."

Kejriwal is slated to take oath as the Delhi Chief Minister for the third time at Ramlila Maidan on February 16.

AAP galloped to a landslide victory by winning 62 of the 70 seats in the Delhi Assembly elections in the face of a high-voltage campaign by the BJP, which fielded a battery of Union Ministers and Chief Ministers in its electioneering, spearheaded by Home Minister Amit Shah.

The BJP marginally improved its tally, managing just eight seats from its 2015's tally of three seats. The Congress, which drew a blank in the previous elections, failed to open its account yet again.

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, Jun 25: The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Centre and the CBSE to issue fresh notification in connection with Class 12 exams, clarifying the option between internal assessment and exams later.

The observation from the top court after it was informed that the CBSE has decided to cancel the remaining board exams for Class 10 and Class 12.

A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna asked the Centre to clarify the issue of taking the option between internal assessment and exams later.

"Clarify the date of results," said the bench, noting that the CBSE will have to submit a fresh draft notification cancelling class 12 Board exams and affidavit on Friday morning, before the top court continues to hear the matter again at 10.30 a.m.

The apex court also sought clarity on the beginning of the new academic year.

It told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, that the CBSE is willing to conduct exams when the situation is conducive, but this may vary from state to state. "Will the decision be taken by a central authority or will the state government take the decision? How are you going to deal with that situation?"

Mehta replied that the decision must be taken according to the situation. To this, the bench said should not the solution be pan-India?

"You have not said when you will decide on this issue, and when you will take stock of these things. Some time frame will have to be given," noted the bench.

Continuing its queries, the bench said: "What about state regional board exams... the CBSE does not hold all the exams. The state Board is also there."

Mehta replied that the instructions from the controller of examinations are that exams are controlled centrally. "State boards assist the CBSE," he replied.

The bench observed that the government should modify the draft notification and include the state board issue. "Clear the stand that decision will be taken at the central level and not at the state level... other courses will have to be delayed till CBSE exam results come out," it said.

Mehta replied the assessment results will be published now, and if a student wants to opt to give the exam, then that will be conducted later. The top court asked Mehta to bring this on record and redraft the notification.