We won't let triple talaq bill be passed in Rajya Sabha: Congress leader

Agencies
December 29, 2018

Kochi, Dec 29: The Congress party will not let the triple talaq bill be passed in its present form in the Rajya Sabha, AICC general secretary KC Venugopal said here on Saturday.

The party would join hands with those parties with which it can ally with to defeat the bill in the present form, he told reporters here.

He said 10 opposition parties had come out openly against the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2018 when it was introduced in the Lok Sabha.

Even the parties, including AIADMK which supports the government on various issues and the Trinamool Congress, have come out openly against the bill, said Venugopal who is also a Congress floor strategist.

Condemning the bill, he said stringent provisions like criminalisation of a civil wrong were there in the triple talaq bill and it was not at all acceptable for the opposition parties, including the Congress.

"...The bill will not help empower the women", Venugopal said.

The bill, passed by the Lok Sabha on Thursday, is expected to be considered by the Rajya Sabha next week.

He claimed there was no confusion in the Congress-led UPA or party-led UDF in Kerala regarding the bill.

Recalling the passage of the bill in another form in the Lok Sabha in 2017, the Alappuzha MP said the then government could not push the bill in the Upper House due to the stringent opposition from the Congress and other opposition parties.

"That is the reason why the government brought the ordinance and re-introduced the bill again in the Lok Sabha. But the Congress will oppose its passage in the present form in the Rajya Sabha," he said.

The Congress had earlier accused the NDA government of getting the triple talaq bill passed in haste in the Lok Sabha keeping in mind the 2019 general elections.

The party has said its provisions were against the Constitution as well as fundamental rights.

The Lok Sabha on Thursday passed the bill criminalising the practice of instant triple talaq, with the government rejecting the contention that it was aimed at targeting a particular community.

The opposition, which had been demanding that the bill be referred to a 'joint select committee', staged a walkout when its demand was rejected by the government.

The bill was passed by the Lower House with 245 voting in favour and 11 opposing the legislation.

It would now go to the Rajya Sabha for passage and if passed would become the law.

Piloting the bill, law minister Ravi Shankar Prasadhad said there should be no politics on the bill, stressing that it was not against any particular community.

Describing the passage of the triple talaq bill as a historic step to ensure equality and dignity of Muslim women, BJP chief Amit Shah had demanded apology from the Congress for decades of injustice.

Comments

Abdullah
 - 
Sunday, 30 Dec 2018

Kade hoke mooth ke nehi done walon ku kya maloom shariyath k bare me? In logon ku nahane hamlogone sikaye. Khane ham logon ne sikaye. Ghosh aur Biriyani Khane hum logon ne sikaye. Dhang se kapde pehan ne hum logon ne sikakye. Building aur Imarathen hamara hai. Independent hum logon ne lade. Ab Hamare billi hame meyaon???!!!

 

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 18,2020

New Delhi, Apr 18: With 957 new cases of COVID-19 in the last 24 hours and 36 deaths, India's total count of coronavirus cases has surged to 14,792, said the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on Saturday.

The total cases are inclusive of 2,014 cured and discharged patients, one migrated and 488 deaths. At present, there are 12,289 active COVID-19 cases in the country.

Lav Aggarwal, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare said that mortality rate due to COVID-19 in our country is around 3.3 per cent.

"An age-wise analysis will tell you that 14.4 per cent of deaths have been reported in the age group of 0-45 years. Between 45-60 years it is 10.3 percent, between 60-75 years it is 33.1 percent and for 75 years, and above it is 42.2 percent," Aggarwal said at a press conference here.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 27,2020

New Delhi, Mar 27: The death toll due to COVID-19 rose to 17 in the country on Friday and the number of coronavirus cases climbed to 724, according to the Health Ministry. In its updated figures at 9.15 am, the ministry stated that four deaths were reported from Maharashtra while Gujarat had registered three deaths.

Karnataka has reported two deaths so far, while Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Punjab, Delhi, West Bengal, Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh have reported one death each.

According to the data, the number of active COVID-19 cases in the country stood at 640, while 66 people were either cured or discharged and one had migrated. The total number of 724 cases included 47 foreign nationals, the ministry said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 1,2020

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.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.