Strict laws to be used to deal with 'benami' transactions: PM

New Delhi, May 12: Stranded for over 50 days due to the lockdown and suspension of passenger train services, many people in the national capital will finally be able to reach their destinations in different parts of the country after the railways resumed services on Tuesday.

Three special AC trains will leave the New Delhi railway station for Dibrugarh, Bengaluru and Bilaspur.

The train to Dibrugarh in Assam will leave at 4.45 p.m, while the one leaving for Bilaspur in Chhattisgarh and Bengaluru in Karnataka will leave the New Delhi station at 5.30 p.m and 9.15 p.m respectively.

Entry to the station has been facilitated from the Paharganj side for all confirmed ticket holders. No entry for passengers holding such tickets will be permitted from the Ajmeri Gate side, the railways said.

Railway authorities have put barricades outside the station premises and only those with confirmed tickets are being allowed to enter.

All passengers are undergoing thermal screening before entering the station premises. For this purpose, they have also been asked to reach the station 90 minutes prior to the departure of the train.

A senior Railway Police Force officer said every passenger is being subjected to thermal screening. Hand sanitiser machines have also been placed at the entrance and the passengers are being advised to sanitise their hands before entering the station premises.

Syed Yasir, a private retail sector executive, said due to the resumption of services he will now be able to go to Nagpur to be with his family on Eid. 

Surendra, an engineer with a PSU, was on an assignment in Agra when the lockdown was announced. After the Railways decided to resume passenger train services, he came to Delhi in a private vehicle to board the train to Bengaluru.

"I was on an assignment in Agra where I was stuck. I have come from Agra in a private vehicle and now going to board the train to Bengaluru," Surendra, who identified himself with his first name, said.

Five more trains bound for Delhi will leave from Patna, Bengaluru, Howrah, Mumbai and Ahmedabad, the railways said.

Sopore, Jammu And Kashmir: A three-year-old boy survived as his grandfather was killed in a terror attack on the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in Jammu and Kashmir's Sopore town this morning. A CRPF jawan was also killed in the line of duty as terrorists opened fire on a patrol team.

In heart-wrenching images, the child is seen sitting on the blood-splattered body of his grandfather, a civilian caught in the crossfire. The boy was numb with fear when he was picked up by policemen, according to the police.

The Kashmir police also tweeted a photo of the child being carried to safety by a policeman.

"Jammu and Kashmir police rescued a three-year-old boy from getting hit by bullets during the terrorist attack in Sopore," said the tweet by the Kashmir Zone Police.

The child was travelling in a Maruti car with his grandfather from Srinagar to Handwara when it was hit by a spray of bullets in Sopore town, which is in Baramulla district about 50 km from Srinagar.

The police said terrorists hiding in a mosque fired indiscriminately at the patrol team as it was getting off a bus. The CRPF troops retaliated but the terrorists managed to escape.

According to the CRPF, the grandfather stopped the car and got out to run to a safe spot but was shot dead in the firing by terrorists. The boy was later rescued by a policeman standing nearby.

Last week, a six-year-old boy was killed during a terror attack on the CRPF in Anantnag.

Little Nihaan Bhat was sleeping in a parked car when he was hit by a bullet. Police say the terrorist was on a bike and opened fire from a pistol on a CRPF patrol. One jawan was killed. The child's killing drew widespread anger and condemnation.

The terrorist believed to be involved in the Anantnag attack escaped yesterday after an encounter with security forces. Police said two other terrorists who were hiding with him at a village were killed.

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.