'Take advantage of India's growth': Naidu to Zimbabwe

Jan 15: Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath said on Tuesday that the Muslim population in India increased manifold since the partition because they were given special rights and facilities, according to a report by The Indian Express.

"The Muslim population in India has increased manifold since 1947, it has gone up by seven to eight times. No one has any objection. If they, as citizens of the country, work for development, they are welcome. Their population has increased because they have been given special rights and facilities. All possible steps were taken to ensure their growth," Adityanath said while addressing a rally in Gaya organised by the BJP in support of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.

He asked the audience, "But what happened in Pakistan?" Claiming that the Hindu population in Pakistan had decreased since 1947, he asked why it was so.

Yogi said that the countrywide anti-CAA protests are a "conspiracy" hatched from afar by those resentful of a united and grand India and these are being aided by a "crooked" opposition. He further charged that those opposing the legislation were committing the "paap" (sin) of working against national interests.

"For taking such a step, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah deserve acclaim. Instead, they are being attacked", Yogi lamented.

New Delhi, Jul 18: With 34,884 people testing positive for coronavirus in the last 24 hours, India's Covid-19 caseload surged to 10,38,716 while 6,53,750 patients have recovered from the disease so far, according to data by the Union Health Ministry.

The death toll due to Covid-19 rose to 26,273 with 671 fatalities reported in a day, the data updated at 8 am on Saturday showed.

At present, there are 3,58,692 active cases in the country, while 6,53,750 people have recovered so far and one has migrated.

"Around 62.94 per cent of patients have recovered so far," an official said.

The total number of confirmed cases includes foreigners.

This is the third consecutive day when the number of Covid-19 cases increased by more than 30,000.

According to the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), a cumulative total of 1,34,33,742 samples have been tested for COVID-19 up to July 17 with 3,61,024 samples being tested on Friday.

Of the 671 deaths reported in the last 24 hours, 258 are from Maharashtra, 115 from Karnataka, 79 from Tamil Nadu, 42 from Andhra Pradesh, 38 from Uttar Pradesh, 26 each from West Bengal and Delhi, 17 from Gujarat, nine each from Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab, and eight each from Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan.

Telangana has reported seven fatalities followed by Haryana with five deaths, Jharkhand, Bihar and Odisha reported four each, Assam and Puducherry have registered three each, Chhattisgarh and Goa reported two each while Kerala and Uttarakhand have registered a fatality each.

Of the total 26,273 deaths reported so far, Maharashtra accounted for the highest 11,452 fatalities followed by Delhi with 3,571 deaths, Tamil Nadu 2,315, Gujarat 2,106, Karnataka 1,147, Uttar Pradesh 1,084, West Bengal 1,049, Madhya Pradesh 697 and Rajasthan 546.

So far 534 people have died of COVID-19 in Andhra Pradesh, 403 in Telangana, 327 in Haryana, 239 in Punjab, 231 in Jammu and Kashmir, 201 in Bihar, 83 in Odisha, 51 in Uttarakhand and Assam each, 46 in Jharkhand and 38 in Kerala.

Puducherry has registered 25 deaths, Chhattisgarh 23, Goa 21, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh 11 each, Arunachal Pradesh and Tripura three each, Meghalaya and Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu two each while Ladakh has reported one fatality.

The Health Ministry stressed that more than 70 per cent of the deaths occurred due to comorbidities.

Maharashtra has reported the highest number of cases at 2,92,589 followed by Tamil Nadu at 1,60,907, Delhi at 1,20,107, Karnataka at 55,115, Gujarat at 46,430, Uttar Pradesh at 45,163 and Telangana at 42,496.

The number of Covid-19 cases has gone up to 40,646 in Andhra Pradesh, 38,011 in West Bengal, 27,789 in Rajasthan, 24,797 in Haryana, 23,589 in Bihar and 21,081 in Madhya Pradesh.

Assam has instances of 20,646 infections, Odisha 16,110 and Jammu and Kashmir 12,757 cases. Kerala has reported 11,066 novel coronavirus infections so far, while Punjab has 9,442 cases.

A total of 4,964 have been infected by the virus in Chhattisgarh, 4,921 in Jharkhand, 4,102 in Uttarakhand, 3,304 in Goa, 2,366 in Tripura, 1,832 in Puducherry, 1,800 in Manipur, 1,417 in Himachal Pradesh and 1,151 in Ladakh.

Nagaland has recorded 956 Covid-19 cases, Chandigarh 660, Arunachal Pradesh 609 and Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu together have reported 585 cases.

Meghalaya has reported 403 cases, Mizoram 282, Sikkim has registered 266 infections so far, while Andaman and Nicobar Islands has recorded 194 cases.

"Our figures are being reconciled with the ICMR," the ministry said, adding that 163 cases are being reassigned to states.

State-wise distribution is subject to further verification and reconciliation, it added.

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.