Student must be ‘vegetarian’ for gold medal in academics, says Pune varsity

New Delhi, Jul 22: With a spike of 37,724 cases and 648 deaths reported in the last 24 hours, the total number of COVID-19 cases in India stands at 11,92,915, according to the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

The total number of cases includes 4,11,133 active cases, 7,53,050 cured/discharged/migrated and 28,732 deaths, the Health Ministry informed.

Maharashtra remains the worst affected state with 3,27,031 cases and 12,276 deaths.
The second worst-hit state, Tamil Nadu has reported 1,80,643 COVID-19 cases so far while Delhi has reported 1,25,096 cases, according to the Ministry.

Other states that have witnessed a higher number of COVID-19 positive cases include, Andhra Pradesh with 58,668 cases, Karnataka with 71,069 while Telangana has reported 47,705 COVID-19 positive cases.

Meanwhile, as per the information provided by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), the total number of samples tested up to July 21 is 1,47,24, 546 including 3,43,243 samples tested yesterday.

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, Jan 5: A masked mob on Sunday entered the Sabarmati Hostel on the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) campus and assaulted several students and professors with sticks and rods.

"I have been brutally attacked by goons wearing masks. I am bleeding. I was brutally beaten up," JNU Students' Union (JNUSU) president Aishe Ghosh told reporters.

She has been admitted to the AIIMS here for treatment.

Several other students were also injured in the incident.

In a video of the incident, a group of goons with their faces covered can be seen assaulting students with wooden sticks and rods.

A tweet from the official handle of the JNUSU said, "Sabarmati Hostel: right now. They are beating the students who are inside. Knocking on doors with rods. People are jumping from balconies. #SOSJNU #EmergencyinJNU."

"Professors who were trying to protect us have been beaten up. These are unknown ABVP goons, not all are students, they have covered their faces, and they are moving towards the hotels near the West Gate. Stay alert. Make human chains. Protect each other. #SOSJNU #EmergencyinJNU," another tweet added.

Meanwhile, the ABVP's JNU unit claimed in a tweet: "Emergency in JNU. Leftist goons of JNU accompained with their cadre from other universities have crossed every limit. They have proceeded with unimaginable violence on ABVP activists of JNU."