Triple Talaq verdict: Centre won't rush to enact a new law

Washington, Mar 8: An attendee at last week's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), which also saw the participation of US President Donald Trump, has tested positive for COVID-19, the American Conservative Union (ACU) said.

The exposure occurred prior to the conference held in National Harbor, Maryland, just south of Washington D.C., Xinhua news agency quoted the ACU as saying in a statement on Saturday.

A New Jersey hospital tested the person, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed the positive result, said the statement.

"The individual is under the care of medical professionals in the state of New Jersey, and has been quarantined," it said.

Trump and Vice President Mike Pence spoke at the gathering, which took place from February 26-29.

Also present at the event were a number of administration and cabinet officials, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, and newly-appointed White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.

White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement Saturday that the White House was aware of the development.

"At this time there is no indication that either President Trump or Vice President Pence met with or were in close proximity to the attendee," Grisham said in a statement.

"The President's physician and US Secret Service have been working closely with White House Staff and various agencies to ensure every precaution is taken to keep the First Family and the entire White House Complex safe and healthy."

The news emerged as Washington D.C. and neighbouring state of Virginia respectively confirmed their first cases of COVID-19 on Saturday.

In a press conference on Saturday night, Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser said a resident in his 50s showed symptoms of a respiratory virus in February. He was admitted to a hospital in the District on March 5.

The patient had no history of recent international travel, nor had he been exposed to anyone who was confirmed to be infected, according to Bowser.

The Mayor said D.C. health authorities were investigating the man's contact with other people before he went to the hospital.

A US Marine assigned to Fort Belvoir in Fairfax County, Virginia, tested positive on Saturday for COVID-19 and is currently being treated at Fort Belvoir Community Hospital, according to a Pentagon spokesman.

"The Marine recently returned from overseas where he was on official business," tweeted Jonathan Rath Hoffman, adding that Secretary of Defence Mark Esper and the White House have been briefed.

As of Saturday night, more than 420 cases of COVID-19 were reported in the US with 17 deaths, according to the Center for Systems Science and Engineering at Johns Hopkins University.

New Delhi, Feb 16: Despite the fact that Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) managed to clean sweep in the recently-concluded 2020 Delhi Assembly polls with eight women candidates winning, Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's new cabinet does not have a single woman.

This, even as eight AAP women candidates -- Atishi Marlena, Rakhi Birla, Raj Kumari Dhillon, Preeti Tomar, Dhanwati Chandela, Parmila Tokas, Bhavna Gaur and Bandana Kumari emerged victorious in the 2020 Assembly polls.

Also, AAP's poll campaign had put the spotlight on women's issues- free bus rides for women, safety etc.

This year, AAP had fielded nine female candidates out of which only woman candidate Sarita Singh from Rohtas Nagar suffered defeat. In 2015, the party had fielded six women candidates, all of whom won the election.

Atishi Marlena, who won the election from Kalkaji, has served as a key advisor to the AAP leader Manish Sisodia primarily on education policies that transformed public school education in the capital.

Just like Marlena, incumbent MLA Rakhi Birla from Mangolpuri constituency has also failed to comeback to the Cabinet in this term even after bagging over 74,100 votes, with a margin of over 30,000 votes and 58 per cent of the vote share.

She was charged with the Cabinet Ministry of Women and Child, Social Welfare and Languages, for a few months in AAP's first term from 2013 to 2014. During this, period she came to the spotlight as she became the youngest ever cabinet minister of Delhi at the age of 26 and was even called "giant killer" for defeating four-time Congress MLA Raj Kumar Chouhan in 2013 Delhi polls.

Another candidate of AAP, Raj Kumari Dhillon swept Hari Nagar against BJP's Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga by a margin of over 20,100 votes.

Apart from these three, Preeti Tomar (Tri Nagar), Dhanwati Chandela (Rajouri Nagar), Pramila Tokas (RK Puram), Bhavna Gaur (Palam), and Bandana Kumari (Shalimar Bagh)- the other five who won for AAP- do not figure in the new cabinet.

Today at Ramlila Maidan, AAP national convenor Arvind Kejriwal was sworn-in as Chief Minister of Delhi.

Besides him, Manish Sisodia, Satyender Jain, Gopal Rai, Kailash Gehlot, Imran Hussain, and Rajendra Gautamas took oath as the ministers in Delhi.

AAP achieved a landslide victory in the Assembly elections with a clear majority of 62 seats out of 70. 

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.