Troop deployment in J&K based on internal security situation: Home ministry

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.

Feb 28: National oil marketer Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) on Friday said it is ready to supply low emission BS-VI fuels from April 1 and that there will be a marginal increase in retail prices.

The largest oil supplier has spent over Rs 17,000 crore to upgrade its refineries to produce the low-sulfur diesel and petrol, the company's chairman Sanjiv Singh told reporters here.

Without disclosing the quantum of price increase, Singh said, “there will definitely be a marginal increase in retail prices of the fuels from April 1 when the whole country will be run on new fuels, which will have a sulphur content of only 10 parts per million (ppm) as against the present 50 ppm.

“But let me assure you, we will not be burdening the consumers with a steep hike,” Singh said.

He said, state-run oil marketing companies (OMCs) have invested Rs 35,000 crore to upgrade their refineries, of which Rs 17,000 crore have been spent by IOC alone.

Earlier this week, the sell-off bound BPCL said it had invested around Rs 7,000 crore for the same. ONGC-run HPCL has not so far disclosed its readiness for BS-VI supplies or its capex on the same.

HPCL had said from February 26-27 it was ready with BS-VI fuels and that it would sell only the new fuels from March 1.

IOC switched to BS-VI fuel production a fortnight ago and all its depots and containers are ready now, Singh said.

However, he said some remote locations, where the intake is very low, will take some more time to switch. But the company is planning to drain out the entire BS-IV stock and replenish the new fuels at such locations, he added.

Further, it has been reported that the companies will have to increase prices by 70-120 paise a litre, but Singh said, to arrive such a weighted average is not possible given the complexities of each refinery.

He, however, asserted that the price hike will not be a burden on consumers.

We are not looking at this investment from a pure return on investment basis, but this is a national mandate and we have done it.

Having said that, all those countries that moved to low emission fuels are charging higher prices; and from April 1, our prices will also be benchmarked against Euro VI prices as against the present practice of the cost-plus model, Singh concluded.