Udupi: Girl child found murdered a day after she was allegedly kidnapped

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.

Islamabad, Feb 29: A coalition comprising digital media giants Facebook, Google and Twitter (among others) have spoken out against the new regulations approved by the Pakistani government for social media, threatening to suspend services in the country if the rules were not revised, it was reported.

In a letter to Prime Minster Imran Khan earlier this month, the Asia Internet Coalition (AIC) called on his government to revise the new sets of rules and regulations for social media, The News International reported on Friday.

"The rules as currently written would make it extremely difficult for AIC Members to make their services available to Pakistani users and businesses," reads the letter, referring to the Citizens Protection Rules (Against Online Harm).

The new set of regulations makes it compulsory for social media companies to open offices in Islamabad, build data servers to store information and take down content upon identification by authorities.

Failure to comply with the authorities in Pakistan will result in heavy fines and possible termination of services.

It said that the regulations were causing "international companies to re-evaluate their view of the regulatory environment in Pakistan, and their willingness to operate in the country".

Referring to the rules as "vague and arbitrary in nature", the AIC said that it was forcing them to go against established norms of user privacy and freedom of expression.

"We are not against regulation of social media, and we acknowledge that Pakistan already has an extensive legislative framework governing online content. However, these Rules fail to address crucial issues such as internationally recognized rights to individual expression and privacy," The News International quoted the letter as saying.

According to the law, authorities will be able to take action against Pakistanis found guilty of targeting state institutions at home and abroad on social media.

The law will also help the law enforcement authorities obtain access to data of accounts found involved in suspicious activities.

It would be the said authority's prerogative to identify objectionable content to the social media platforms to be taken down.

In case of failure to comply within 15 days, it would have the power to suspend their services or impose a fine worth up to 500 million Pakistani rupees ($3 million).

The rapid spread of COVID-19 across the globe has thrown movement of lakhs of travelers off gear. This has not only impacted pleasure trips of tourists but also business travel resulting in monetary losses worth millions.

In wake of numerous advisories against travel, the travel industry, particularly the aviation sector, has also get badly impacted. Not only traffic on their once popular routes have plummeted but several have to cancel flights to destinations in China and few other South and East Asian countries to prevent becoming carrier of the contagious virus.

According to MakeMyTrip flight bookings for Southeast Asian countries have been significantly impacted but sectors in But US and Europe are only seeing a marginal dip.

More than 95,000 people in 86 countries have been infected with the virus and more than 3,200 people have died. In India so far 31 persons have tested positive for the virus.

So the situation across the globe remains grim with only positives coming from China where fresh infections of COVID-19 has reduced. But does that make travel safer? And what if you still need to travel...are there enough flights available or whether the ticket you procured protects against any unforeseen cancellations?

Here is the situation as it exists :

International flights by domestic carriers:

*Air India and Indigo that run long haul flights have cancelled their flights to Hong Kong and Shanghai and the restrictions may well run into June

*SpicejJet has cancelled Delhi Hong Kong flights till March 28

*Vistara Airlines has cancelled around 54 flights to and from Bangkok and Singapore.

*GoAir suspends flight operations to Dammam, Saudi Arabia after an advisory issued by the Saudi government to not allow non-Saudi residents to enter. It has also suspended flights to Thailand

International flights by global airlines:

*Almost all major airlines operating out of India have suspended flights to China, Korea, Iran, Italy and some to Japan.

*European and American connections provide by airlines such as Lufthansa, KLM, United Airlines from India continues

*JAL is still operating its service to Japan from India

*United, Air Canada, JetBlue, Alaska, American Airlines, Delta, Brutus Airways have suspended flights to China and reduced operations in countries with high Coronavirus infections such as Italy

Domestic airlines:

There have been no restrictions on domestic travel, so far.

What advisories have been issued by authorities that can affect your travel plan :

*From March 9 midnight all air travellers having visited or arriving from Italy and South Korea will require to submit a certificate of having tested nagative from health authorities -designated lab in their countries for Coronavirus at the departure.

*India has also suspended most visas issued to nationals of Japan, South Korea, Italy, Iran and China, as well as suspending visas of any travellers who had been to those five countries since February.

*It has now been decided that all incoming international passengers must declare their travel history to health and immigrations officials at India's airports.

*Arrivals from DGCA list of 12 countries undergo thermal screening, passengers with high temperature taken to quantantine

*Screening to be carried out at 21 airports across the country

*Regular (sticker) visa/e-visa granted to nationals of People's Republic of China, issued on or before February 5, 2020 were suspended earlier. It shall remain in force.

*Those needing to travel to India under compelling circumstances may apply for fresh visa to the nearest Indian Embassy/Consulate," the advisory said.

*An advisory had also directed passengers arriving directly or indirectly from China, South Korea, Japan, Iran, Italy, Hong Kong, Macau, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Nepal, Thailand, Singapore and Taiwan to undergo medical screening at the port of entry

Travel Insurance :

*All Indian carriers are offering full refund or bookings to alternate destinations for flights that were booked earlier but are getting cancelled due Coronavirus scare.

*GoAir stated that people have the option of availing a full refund or utilising the booking amount for any future travel with the airline.

*In a travel advisory, Emirates has stated that those wishing to travel to Saudi Arabia will have to contact the Emirates office or their travel agent for refunds.

*Others travellers having expensive insurance cover may get full refunds by the insurance companies if they have included everything under coverage.

*But a larger number of insurers do not provide travel insurance against any pandemics outright. Moreover, any travel plan made now may not get covered for can cancellations due to Coronavirus.