Will bury alive those who raise slogans against Modi and Yogi: UP Minister

Mumbai, Feb 2: Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Sunday slammed the BJP-led central government on the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and said that the new law only serves the objectives of the Sangh Parivar of turning India into a Hindu Rashtra.

He said that in order to achieve their objectives, the "communal elements" are trying to divide India's people through the same strategy as employed by the British colonisers in the past.

Lauding people in Mumbai for their protests against CAA, the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the National Population Register (NPR), the Kerala chief minister also outlined three reasons for his government's decision to reject the Citizenship Amendment Act.

"Over the last several weeks, Mumbai citizens made clear their unyielding opposition to efforts made by Hindutva elements to tear apart the secular fabric of our society. I express solidarity with struggles being made across the city in defence of secularism and the Indian Constitution," Vijayan said at an event here.

The chief minister was addressing the 'Mumbai Collective' here on the topic of 'National struggle against communalism'.

"The government of Kerala is acting as per the Constitution. Like Kerala, other states are also looking at CAA as against the fundamentals of the Constitution. It (CAA) violates basic human rights and is divisive and deeply discriminatory," CM Vijayan said, adding that the new citizenship law only furthers the Sangh Parivar's objective of creating a Hindu Rashtra.

He said the CAA needs to be rejected for three basic reasons.

"First, it is against the letter and spirit of our Constitution. Secondly, it is highly discriminatory and violative of human rights. Thirdly, it seeks to impose philosophy of Sangh Parivar with its mission of Hindu Rashtra," the chief minister said.

Vijayan also participated in the human chain organised by Left Democratic Front (LDF) against CAA and NRC and said that "the law is a threat to the secularism of this country".

The newly enacted law is facing stiff opposition across the country with several non-NDA states including Kerala, West Bengal, Rajasthan and Punjab refusing to implement it.

Rajasthan, Kerala and Punjab have passed resolutions against the recently amended law in their respective state Assemblies.

The CAA grants citizenship to Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, Buddhists and Christians fleeing religious persecution from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh and who came to India on or before December 31, 2014.

Mumbai, Jan 29: Unfazed by his suspension from flying on Tuesday, stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra on Wednesday claimed that he once again approached television journalist Arnab Goswami, who he said was his co-passenger on a flight from Lucknow, for an "honest discussion" but was turned away.

Kamra tweeted in the morning that "Arnab Goswami was again travelling in his flight while returning from Lucknow". "I again asked him politely if he wants to have a honest discussion he with his verbal arrogant hand jester he asked me to move away & I did that (sic)," he tweeted.

The comedian was suspended from flying by IndiGo and Air India on Tuesday after he allegedly heckled Goswami aboard a Mumbai-Lucknow plane and posted a video clip on his Twitter handle.

FYI - Arnab Goswami was in my
flight again this morning while returning from lucknow... I again asked him politely if he wants to have a honest discussion he with his verbal arrogant hand jester he asked me to move away & I did that...

— Kunal Kamra (@kunalkamra88) January 29, 2020

While IndiGo suspended Kamra from flying with it for a period of six months, Air India banned him until further notice.

In a statement released on Twitter after he posted the video, Kamra said he did "exactly what Republic TV journalists do to people in their private/public spaces". Kamra stated he had not done anything criminal by allegedly heckling Goswami.

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.