Saudi assures help in safe pullout of Indians from Yemen

Mumbai, Jan 7: Against the backdrop of the attack on JNU students, the Shiv Sena on Tuesday hit out at Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah, alleging that what they wanted was happening, and said such "brutal politics" was never seen before in the country.

An editorial in Shiv Sena mouthpiece 'Saamana' further alleged that the BJP wanted to see "Hindu-Muslim riots" over the Citizenship Amendment Act, but that did not happen.

Since the BJP has been cornered over the issue of CAA, several things are happening out of "revenge", it said.

Comparing the attack on Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) students to the 26/11 Mumbai terror strikes, the Shiv Sena said: "divisive politics" was dangerous for the country.

It said the Union Home Ministry's decision to file cases against "unknown" attackers at JNU was laughable. "Those who entered JNU with masks are not unknown," it claimed.

On Sunday, a mob of masked young people stormed the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) campus in south Delhi and targeted students in three hostels, unleashing mayhem with sticks, stones and iron rods, hitting inmates and breaking windows, furniture and personal belongings.

Nearly 34 people were injured in the violence.

"The fallout of JNU attack is being seen elsewhere in the country...what Modi and Shah want is happening. The country is in danger. Divisive politics is dangerous for the country," the Uddhav Thackeray-led party said.

Terrorists who attacked Mumbai on November 26, 2008, were also masked and the same was seen at JNU. Such elements need to be exposed, it said.

"Allowing blood stains in universities, colleges and beating up of students and indulging in politics over the burning situation...such brutal politics was never seen before," the Marathi publication said while terming the attack on JNU students as a "blot" on the law and order situation.

Lashing out at Amit Shah, the Sena said he his in Delhi and busy distributing official pamphlets door-to-door to promote the Citizenship Amendment Act.

There is "confusion and unrest" in the country over the new citizenship law, it pointed out.

"The BJP wanted to see Hindu-Muslim riots over the issue, but that did not happen. The nationwide protests are not being done by Muslims alone. Hindus will also be affected due to the new Act," the Shiv Sena said.

It said the BJP has been cornered over the CAA issue.

Since the prevailing situation is "BJP versus the rest", hence "out of revenge", several things are happening, the Marathi daily said, adding that "there is room for doubt if the JNU attack was part of the revenge."

The BJP has condemned the violence and said universities should stay away from politics, it noted.

"Who brought violence and politics in universities in the last five years? Who is implementing the policy of destroying those who don't agree with your ideology by use of power?" it asked.

Without taking any name, the Sena said those who call students opposing the CAA as anti-nationals, are themselves anti-national.

"When Amit Shah accuses Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi of inciting violence, he admits that the Gandhi siblings have that much power to create mass awareness against a law brought in by the Centre and bring people to streets," the Sena said.

One cannot say if the Gandhi siblings incited violence, but one thing is sure that the Union Home Minister and his party are forced to distribute pamphlets to "clarify" on the new citizenship law, it said in sarcastic comments.

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.