System cleaning done by BJP govt after 2014 unbelievable, says Nirmala Sitharaman

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.

Jun 8: Petrol and diesel prices were hiked by 60 paisa per litre on Monday, for the second day in a row, as state-owned oil firms reverted to daily price revisions after a 83-day hiatus.

Petrol price in Delhi was hiked to Rs 72.46 per litre from Rs 71.86 on Sunday, while diesel rates were increased to Rs 70.59 a litre from Rs 69.99, according to a price notification of state oil marketing companies.

This is the second daily increase in rates in a row. Oil companies had on Sunday raised prices by 60 paisa per litre on both petrol and diesel after ending a 83-day hiatus in daily rate revision.

Daily price revision has restarted, an oil company official said.

While oil PSUs have regularly revised ATF and LPG prices, they had since March 16 kept petrol and diesel prices on hold, ostensibly on account of extreme volatility in the international oil markets.

Auto fuel prices were frozen soon after the government raised excise duty on petrol and diesel by Rs 3 per litre each to mop up gains arising from falling international rates.

The government on May 6 again raised excise duties by Rs 10 per litre on petrol and Rs 13 per litre on diesel.

Oil companies, instead of passing on the excise hike to consumers, decided to adjust them against the reduction required because of the drop in international oil prices. They used the same tool and did not pass on the Re 1 per litre hike required for switching over to ultra-clean BS-VI grade fuel from April 1.

New Delhi, Feb 3: Union minister Prakash Javadekar on Monday said Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal had called himself an "anarchist" and there is not much of a "difference between an anarchist and a terrorist".

His remarks come a few days after the Election Commission issued a show cause notice to BJP MP Parvesh Verma for allegedly calling Kejriwal a "terrorist".

Addressing a press conference here, Javadekar raked up the issue of Kejriwal "staying a night at the Moga residence of Khalistan Commando Force chief Gurinder Singh during the Punjab Assembly polls".

"You knew it was a militant's house. Still, you stayed there. How much more evidence do you need?" he said.

"Kejriwal is now asking with a sad face, 'am I a terrorist?' You are a terrorist and there is a lot of evidence to prove that. You yourself had said you are an anarchist. There is not much of a difference between an anarchist and a terrorist," the senior BJP leader said.

Flanked by Delhi BJP chief Manoj Tiwari and Union minister Anurag Thakur, Javadekar said the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) was supporting Shaheen Bagh, where slogans of "Assam ko azadi", "Jinnah wali azadi" were being raised. "Supporting such slogans is also terrorism".

He alleged that Kejriwal stood with Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), where "anti-India slogans were raised, and did not grant sanction to prosecute (those who raised the slogans)".

"On January 26, you threatened that you would stop their prosecution. How much more proof do you need? The people of Delhi now know that you are the chief of liars, you are an anarchist and sympathise with terrorists.

"You are supporting Shaheen Bagh, JNU, the slogans being raised there and all such anarchists...then you are definitely a terrorist. This is your identity, no matter how innocent face you make," he said.

On Thursday, the Election Commission had issued a show cause notice to Verma, the BJP MP from West Delhi, for allegedly calling Kejriwal a "terrorist".

He was earlier barred from campaigning for 96 hours (four days) for making controversial remarks at a poll meet recently.

An emotional Kejriwal had later said it was for the people of Delhi to decide whether they consider him their son, brother, or a terrorist.

"How have I become a terrorist? I've arranged for medicines...did so much for the needy. I've never thought of myself or my family... am ready to give my life for the nation," he had said at a press conference.