Why BJP has not built bigger statue for Mahatma Gandhi: Shashi Tharoor

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 4: Amid the agitations against Citizenship Amendment Act, National register of Citizens and National Population Registration across the country, Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday said that there is a "political design" behind all these protests including in Delhi's Jamia and Shaheen Bagh to ruin the harmony of the nation.

"Be it Seelampur, Jamia or Shaheen Bagh, protests held over the past several days regarding the Citizenship Amendment Bill. Is this just a coincidence? No. This is an experiment," said Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his first election rally for Delhi polls at Karkardooma.

"There is a political design behind all these protests including Jamia and Shaheen Bagh. These protests are a conspiracy to divide India. These protests are going to ruin the harmony of the nation," he asserted.

Lambasting the opposition parties including Congress and Aam Aadmi Party for supporting the ongoing protests, he said: "But AAP and Congress are provoking people. Constitution and tricolor are being kept in front and attention is being diverted from the real conspiracy."

"These people were doubting the ability of our forces during surgical strikes. Do citizens of Delhi want such people in power? These people are saving those who want to break India into pieces," he added.

People have been protesting at Jamia and Shaheen Bagh against CAA, NRC and NPR. Members of the Opposition have deemed CAA "discriminatory and anti-Constitution" while the Centre has maintained that the new law has no effect on Indian citizens.

Recently, two firing incidents took place near Jamia Millia Islamia University.On Sunday night, the firing incident was reported near gate number five at the university following which people including some students of the varsity gathered outside the Jamia Nagar police station. They returned from the Jamia Nagar police station after their complaint was registered.

Earlier, a student sustained injuries after a young man fired at the protestors near Jamia.

Thiruvananthapuram, Apr 27: BJP's Kerala state President K Surendran on Monday said it is 'highly irresponsible' of Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan to not attend PM's video conference with all chief ministers on prevailing COVID-19 situation earlier today.

"The Kerala Chief Minister not attending the important conference regarding a pandemic in the country is not good for the state," Surendran said.

The BJP state President believes Vijayan has sent a wrong message by not attending the conference.

"It is the irresponsible behavior of the Chief Minister. Prime Minister Narendra Modi says that team India is fighting this pandemic together. By not attending the meeting, the Kerala CM has sent a wrong message, " he added.

Surendran said that the meeting was of high priority as PM was meeting the state CM's regarding the important decision of lockdown in the country.

"From the last meeting, many things have changed. Other chief ministers who did not get a chance to speak, participated in the meeting. But Kerala CM chose not to attend the meeting and BJP condemns it, " he said.

Kerala CM Pinarayi Vijayan had not participated in the PM's video conference held earlier today and instead Kerala Chief Secretary Tom Jose represented the state in the meet.

According to sources, Kerala has given its suggestions in writing.

This was the fourth such interaction of the Prime Minister with the Chief Ministers, the earlier ones had been held on March 20, April 2, and April 11.

PM Modi in the meeting said the lockdown has yielded positive results as the country has managed to save thousands of lives in the past one and a half months.