SC refuses to pass directions on lifting of restrictions in J&K; says govt needs time

Agencies
August 13, 2019

New Delhi, Aug 13: The situation in Jammu and Kashmir is "very sensitive" and reasonable time should be given to the government to ensure normalcy there, the apex court said on Tuesday while refusing to pass any immediate order to the Centre to lift restrictions in the region imposed after abrogation of Article 370.

The apex court also said that it is to be ensured that no life was lost there and posted the matter after two weeks, saying it will wait for normalcy to return.

A three judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra was hearing the petition filed by Congress activist Tehseen Poonawalla on the Centre's decision to impose restrictions and "other regressive measures" in Jammu and Kashmir following the revocation of the provisions of Article 370.

The Centre told the bench that they are reviewing the situation in the region on a day-to-day basis and reports come from respective district magistrates and relaxations are being ordered accordingly.

"We have to ensure that law and order situation in Jammu and Kashmir is maintained," Attorney General K K Venugopal told the bench.

He referred to the July 2016 agitation in Kashmir after encounter of terrorist Burhan Wani and said it took around three months to bring normalcy at that time.

He said that since 1990, 44,000 people have been killed by extremists and people from across the border have been guiding and giving instructions to them.

He said in the present situation, it will take few days to restore normalcy in Jammu and Kashmir.

Venugopal said that not a single death has been reported since last Monday after the restrictions were imposed.

The AG was responding to the bench which asked about the steps taken by the authorities for bringing normalcy and restoring basic facilities in the region.

During the hearing, the bench said: "The situation is such that nobody knows what exactly is happening there. Some time should be given for bringing normalcy. They are analysing the situation on a day-to-day basis.

"The government's endeavour is to restore normalcy. That is why they are reviewing the situation on a day-to-to basis. If tomorrow anything happens in Jammu and Kashmir, who will be responsible? Obviously the Centre."

The bench further said that it has to look into all the pros and cons and therefore reasonable time should be given to the government to ensure normalcy returns in the state.

It asked the petitioner's counsel senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy to give specific instances where relief is needed.

"You give us specific instances and we will give directions to them to provide relief," the bench said.

The top court asked the AG as to how much time will be needed to restore normalcy.

Venugopal replied that there is need to ensure that law and order situation is maintained and least inconvenience is caused to the general public.

He said that large number of troops and para military forces have been sent to Jammu and Kashmir.

While Guruswamy was making submissions that due to snapping of all type of communication people failed to speak on the festive occasion, the bench said, "nothing can be done overnight. There are serious issues. Normalcy would return and we expect it will come with time. What is important is it has to be ensured that no life is lost".

Venugopal said that the government is ensuring that no violence or human rights violations takes place there.

He said that during the agitation in July 2016, total of 47 persons had died but till today no one has died.

Before posting the matter after two weeks the bench said, "We are with you on the issue of right to liberty of the people. But we should have a real picture before us.

"Wait for sometime. Let us wait for normalcy to return."

The bench told further the petitioner that he will have the chance to come back after two weeks.

At the outset, Guruswamy said how can there be total prohibition on communication that even soldiers posted in the state cannot talk to their family members.

This submission invited angry reactions from the bench.

It said: "Why you are raising grievances on behalf of soldiers. Your prayer is not this. Soldiers have to maintain discipline and if they have any grievance then let them come before us. Why you are taking up the cause of soldiers."

When Guruswamy tried to make a reference of Article 370, the bench warned her saying, "Don't make any such statement on it".

She had said she was not making any comment on Article 370 but was on the issue of constitutional right of the individuals.

While she was making submissions on various violation of rights by referring to people's difficulty in even reaching to hospital and schools and police station, the bench said that in the petition no instances have been cited like that.

"Your petition is poorly drafted," the bench said, adding that it is also filed very carelessly without realizing the seriousness and importance of the matter.

Comments

Deshpremi
 - 
Tuesday, 13 Aug 2019

Very shortly rss finance group ambani n addani will release money to their sewak to purchase land at J&K.then they will put barricade like Palestine.

 

Wait see  iranian shah drama. But our mouna modified will never say any thing about these.

 

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.
Agencies
June 21,2020

New Delhi, June 21: Diesel prices rise to record high after 60 paise hike in rates, petrol up 35 paise; rates up by Rs 8.88 and Rs 7.97 in 15 days.

Petrol price in Delhi was hiked to Rs 79.23 per litre from Rs 78.88, while diesel rates were increased to Rs 78.27 a litre from Rs 77.67, according to a price notification of state oil marketing companies. 

In Bengaluru, petrol will be costlier by 37 paise at Rs 81.81 per litre, while diesel will cost 57 paise more per litre at Rs 74.43.

Rates have been increased across the country and vary from state to state depending on the incidence of local sales tax or VAT.

The 15th daily increase in rates since oil companies on June 7 restarted revising prices in line with costs after ending an 82-day hiatus in rate revision, has taken diesel prices to a new high. The petrol price too is at a two-year high.

Over 63 per cent of the retail selling price of diesel is taxes. Out of the total tax incidence of Rs 49.43 per litre, Rs 31.83 is by way of central excise and Rs 17.60 is VAT. 

Petrol in Mumbai costs Rs 86.04 per litre and diesel is priced at Rs 76.69.

Prior to the current rally, the peak diesel rates had touched was on October 16, 2018 when prices had climbed to Rs 75.69 per litre in Delhi. The highest-ever petrol price was on October 4, 2018 when rates soared to Rs 84 a litre in Delhi.

When rates had peaked in October 2018, the government had cut excise duty on petrol and diesel by Rs 1.50 per litre each. State-owned oil companies were asked to absorb another Re 1 a litre to help cut retail rates by Rs 2.50 a litre.

Oil companies had quickly recouped the Re 1 and the government in July 2019 raised excise duty by Rs 2 a litre.

The government on March 14 hiked excise duty on petrol and diesel by Rs 3 per litre each and then again on May 5 by a record Rs 10 per litre in case of petrol and Rs 13 on diesel. The two hikes gave the government Rs 2 lakh crore in additional tax revenues.

Oil PSUs Indian Oil Corp (IOC), Bharat Petroleum Corp Ltd (BPCL) and Hindustan Petroleum Corp Ltd (HPCL), instead of passing on the excise duty hikes to customers, adjusted them against the fall in the retail rates that was warranted because of a decline in international oil prices to two-decade lows.

International oil prices have since rebounded and oil firms are now adjusting retail rates in line with them.

In 15 days of hike, petrol price has gone up by Rs 7.97 per litre and diesel by Rs 8.88 a litre.

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
July 9,2020

Ujjain, Jul 9: Kanpur encounter main accused Vikas Dubey has been arrested at a police station here on Thursday, as per sources in the Uttar Pradesh government.

"Vikas Dubey, the main accused in Kanpur encounter case, has been arrested at a police station in Ujjain," said UP government sources.

Dubey is the main accused in the encounter that took place in Kanpur last week, in which a group of assailants allegedly opened fire on a police team, which had gone to arrest him.

Eight police personnel were killed in the encounter.

Earlier today, Bahua Dubey and Prabhat Mishra, close aides of the main accused, were killed in separate encounters in Etawah and Kanpur respectively.

Whereas, Shyamu Bajpai, also an aide to Dubey, has been arrested by Chaubeypur police following an encounter. He carried a reward of Rs 25,000. Uttar Pradesh's Special Task Force (STF) had gunned down Vikas Dubey's close aide Amar Dubey in Hamirpur district, earlier on Wednesday.

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.