‘Unethical to continue as civil servant in govt when democracy in danger’: IAS officer Sasikanth Senthil resigns

Mangaluru, May 4: As the coronavirus lockdown norms have been relaxed in the coastal district of Dakshina Kannada, people will be able venture out for essential activities from 7 a.m to 7 p.m.

The lockdown was imposed in the coastal district on March 22 midnight to prevent the spread of Covid-19. Initially it did not apply to essential services such as sale of food, groceries, milk, vegetables, fruits, and meat and fish. Gradually the administration had to intensify the lockdown and allow those shops to remain open between 7 a.m. and 12 noon. However, today (May 4) onwards there will be relaxation of lockdown between 7 am to 7 pm. 

Precautionary measures like maintaining social distancing has been urged and use of face masks has been made mandatory.

Permitted activities

• Permission for plying of auto-rickshaws, cabs, private vehicles and bikes has been given. However only three occupants, including the driver will be allowed and no pillion rule is applicable for two-wheelers.

• OPDs, medical clinics are permitted to operate.

• Standalone shops, shops located in neighbourhood colony, residential complex will be allowed to operate.

• Private organisations can function with 33% staff capacity while allowing work from home for rest of staff.

• E-commerce activities only for essential goods permitted.

• In site construction activities in urban areas, rural areas including MNREGA works.

• Permission is only available to open the shop in the market and in the market complex.

Prohibited activities:

• Movement of individuals is not permitted for all non-essential activities.

• Travel by air, rail and inter-State movement by road.

• Functioning of schools, colleges, and other educational and training/ coaching institutions.

• Hospitality services, including hotels and restaurants.

• Cinema halls, malls, gymnasiums, sports complexes, bars, clubs, swimming pool, entertainment parks, assembly halls, etc; barber shops, spas and salons, textile and apparel(clothes) shops.

• Social, political, cultural, academic, entertainment, religious and other kinds of gatherings; and, religious places/ places of worship for public. 

• Shops in urban and rural areas, for non-essential goods not allowed in malls, markets and Market Complexes.

• All types of traffic movements will be prohibited after evening (7 pm to 7 am)

Bellary,  Jul 26: A 100-year-old woman resident of Huvina Hadagali town in Bellary district, Karnataka, recovered from COVID-19 after testing positive for the virus earlier this month.

"Doctors treated me well. Along with regular food, I was eating an apple a day. The doctors are giving me tablets and injection, and I am healthy now. COVID-19 is like a common cold," said Hallamma while speaking to news agency.

The woman's son, daughter-in-law, and grandson had also tested positive for the virus, and the family was treated at their home.

According to health department officials, her son works at a bank and had tested positive on July 3, after which Hallamma tested positive on July 16; the 100-year-old reported negative for the virus on July 22.

Meanwhile, the covid-19 death toll in the country rose to 32,063 with 705 fatalities being recorded in a day on Sunday. The number of tests for detection of covid-19 has crossed the 16-million mark in the country.

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.