Reservation for SC, ST is a right nobody can take away: PM

March 21, 2016

New Delhi, Mar 21: Reservation for the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and the marginalised in the country will remain untouched, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said when he delivered the Ambedkar Memorial Lecture after he laid the foundation stone for a state-of-the-art memorial for the Dalits' rights crusader in New Delhi.

modi copyThe memorial will house Amedbakar's life’s works.

Highlights

Babasaheb was the voice of the marginalised. He is a Vishwa Manav. Only talking about him with respect to India is injustice to him: PM

The way Sardar Patel worked for Political unification, Baba Saheb Ambedkar worked for social unification: PM Modi

Few people know about the reason why Dr. Ambedkar had to resign from ministry? This part of history is either forgotten or diluted: PM

When issue of equal rights to women came up, Babasaheb was clear that if women don't get equal rights I cant be a part of the ministry: PM

Baba Saheb Ambedkar was as iconic as Martin Luther King who fought for the oppressed: PM Modi

Baba Saheb was messiah of all labourers, he was the architect of foundation labour laws: PM Modi

There is a bill oB waterways in Parliament but let me tell you this vision is of Dr. Ambedkar. He believed in India's maritime strength: PM

Baba Saheb Ambedkar was as iconic as Martin Luther King who fought for the oppressed: PM Modi

Baba Saheb was messiah of all labourers; he was the architect of foundation labour laws: PM Modi

When Vajpayee ji became PM, sections started saying reservation will go. He was PM for two terms nothing of that sort happened. Nothing has ever happened to the reservation for Dalits, tribals, where we are in power but still this lies is spread to mislead. This is a right that nobody can snatch: PM speaks on reservations for SC, ST and marginalised communities: Modi

I have got an opportunity to fulfil Baba Saheb's dream. He left us in 1956. Today, after 60 years, a memorial is being set up: PM Modi

60 years have passed! I don't know how we can explain this, but we have had to wait for 60 years for this: PM Modi

Comments

Naren kotian
 - 
Monday, 21 Mar 2016

Ummah gang chummah kodta irodu nodree . ..next time modi na defeat madtavanthe byaari galu ..haha. ..good joke ...entire 150 crore slummist sorry islamist ...united against our beloved Israel ...shyaata nu keelalikke agilla saabigalige hahaha .....innu Shri Shri sarva shakthimmaan modi na beelsakke Agatha...no ways ...anyways mouka mouka mouka ...this song I will sing here in 2019, when modiji will win next time ...jigadist infrustrure is trumbling due to tougher modi action in real estate and action of NIa ..so their dream of making India darool uloom is under threat ...so they are finding all silly reason to target sangh parivar by using kallayya kumar ...and khaali dose along with gandu ...haha...hara hara modi ...parapara jihadi ...

Clear?
 - 
Monday, 21 Mar 2016

Nobody can take away the rights of SC ST, But we will take away your right to be a PM in next election.

Abu Muhammad
 - 
Monday, 21 Mar 2016

Would your Bachelor Club @ Nagpur allow you to fulfill a fraction of what you said at Sufi Conference and Ambedkar Memorial. Next Month election (1+4 states) preparation speech???

MASTHAN
 - 
Monday, 21 Mar 2016

THEN WHY CHANT ALL ARE EQUAL.

ALL ARE NOT EQUAL. INFLUENCE AND PARTIALITY IS STILL THERE.

Musthafa
 - 
Monday, 21 Mar 2016

Feku must have copies some contents from Kanhaiya Kumar's speech. Mr. Prime minister, even if you say, it's not the right, We know that, it's their right and we will not allow you to take it away

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
February 12,2020

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.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
January 7,2020

New Delhi, Jan 7: A fringe right-wing group calling itself the Hindu Raksha Dal has purportedly taken responsibility for the attack on students of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in a video posted on social media.

The video, which was posted on social media on Monday and has gone viral since then, shows a man identifying himself as Pinki Chaudhary saying that those who resort  to “anti-national activities” will be treated in the same way that JNU students and faculty were.

He later told news channels that others involved in "anti-national activities" would face similar attacks.

There was no immediate reaction from the police on Chaudhury's claims.

“For several years, JNU has been a bastion of communists and we will not tolerate it. Hindu Raksha Dal, Bhupendra Tomar, Pinki Chaudhury take the responsibility of what has happened in JNU...all of them were our volunteers. Those who cannot do such work for Mother India don't have the right to live in this country,” Chaudhary is seen saying in the video.

“We are always ready to sacrifice our lives for Mother India. We will not tolerate anyone who speaks against the religion,” he added.

Efforts to reach the man were unsuccessful: his phone was switched off.

More than 35 students were injured Sunday when a masked mob went on the rampage, attacking students and professors and vandalising property. The JNUSU has accused the RSS-affiliated ABVP volunteers of attacking the students.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 1,2020

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.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.