Temple rape: Lawyer braves threats, says it’s a fight for her daughter too

May 27: At a time when India is struggling with the deadly coronavirus, huge swarms of locusts in many states has bought nightmares to the farmers.

Experts warn of extensive crop losses if authorities fail to curb the fast-spreading swarms by June when monsoon rains spur rice, cane, corn, cotton, and soybean sowing.

Locusts entered India after traveling from Africa through Yemen, Iran and Pakistan.

After massive devastation in Pakistan, t swarms of locusts entered India through Rajasthan and Gujarat. The number is so large that the farmers and authorities are feeling helpless in tackling the threat.

The situation has become more alarming as the locusts is spreading across the country at an extremely fast rate. After badly affecting the crops in Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Madhya Pradesh, the swarm of locust have now entered Uttar Pradesh.

In Rajasthan alone, the locust attack has damaged 5 lakh hectares of crop and nearly 17 districts of Madhya Pradesh have also seen their terror. Earlier from May 2019 to February 2020, too, the locust swarms entered India several times.

Speaking on the current situation, Dr Ram Pravesh, District Agricultural Officer, Agra, Uttar Pradesh said the Department of Agriculture is working with farmers in dealing with the situation. He urged the farmers to inform their Mandal Krishi Adhikari if they require any help.

India's largest-ever locust attack was in 1993 when more than three lakh hectares of cultivated land were completely destroyed.

Earlier in 2020, farmers salvaged their wheat and oilseed crops from a previous locust scourge.

Jammu and Kashmir, May 5: Awarding the prestigious Pulitzer Prize to three Indian photographers, the Pulitzer Board at Columbia University claimed that it was for their work in Kashmir as "India revoked its independence".

The award to Channi Anand, Mukhtar Khan and Dar Yasin in the feature photography category for their pictures for the Associated Press was announced on Monday.

The prizes, considered the most prestigious for US journalism, are associated with the university's Graduate School of Journalism where the judging is done and is announced, although this year it was done remotely.

Besides a certificate, the prizes carry a cash award of $15,000, except the public service category for which a gold medal is awarded.

The public service prize went to The Anchorage Daily News for a series that dealt with policing in Alaska state.

In making the award to the three, the Board said on its website that it was "for striking images of life in the contested territory of Kashmir as India revoked its independence, executed through a communications blackout".

Besides making the false claim about "independence" of Kashmir being "revoked", the board that includes several leading journalists did not explain how their photographs could have reached the AP within hours of the incidents recorded "through a communication blackout".

India's Central government only revoked Article 370 of the Constitution that gave Jammu and Kashmir a special status and it was not independent.

Indian journalists were allowed to operate in Kashmir, while only non-Indian journalists were barred.

The wording of the award announcement calls into question the credibility of the Pulitzer Board that gives out what are considered prestigious journalism awards.

The portfolio of pictures by the three on the Pulitzer web site included one of a masked person attacking a police vehicle and another of masked people with variants of the Kashmir flag, besides photos of mourners and protesters.

One of the finalists for the Pulitzer Prize for explanatory journalism was a reporter of Indian descent at The Los Angeles Times, Swetha Kannan, who was nominated for her work with two colleagues on the seas rising due to climate change.

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.