Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman undergoes 'cooling down' process

New Delhi, Feb 13: Arvind Kejriwal wrote to Delhi Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal on Wednesday, staking claim to form the government in the national capital, sources said, while hinting that the AAP might not invite senior leaders and chief ministers of other parties for the oath-taking ceremony.

The sources said it was the formal process by the AAP chief, who was elected as the legislature party leader earlier in the day, to stake claim for forming the new government.

Kejriwal, who returned to power in Delhi with a stunning poll victory on Tuesday, will take oath as chief minister for the third consecutive time on February 16.

While the oath-taking ceremony will be open to the public, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) was considering not inviting leaders and chief ministers of other parties as it did not wish to be seen as a "confrontationist" against the BJP-led Centre, the sources said.

They, however, added that the party was yet to take a decision on it.

The AAP has planned mobilisation of people for the mega event and all the newly-elected MLAs of the party have been asked to ensure huge participation from their constituencies.

"I request the people of Delhi to attend the oath-taking ceremony of the chief minister at the Ramlila Maidan in large numbers," senior AAP leader Manish Sisodia told reporters, adding that the ceremony will start at 10 am.

The AAP won 62 seats in the 70-member Delhi Assembly, while the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) bagged the remaining eight seats. The Congress drew a blank for the second consecutive time in the Delhi polls.

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.

New Delhi, Apr 8: The death toll due to the novel coronavirus rose to 149 and the number of cases to 5,194 in the country on Wednesday, according to the Union Health Ministry.

While the number of active COVID-19 cases is 4,643, as many as 401 people were cured and discharged and one had migrated, it said.

The total number of cases include 70 foreign nationals.

According to the ministry's data updated at 9 a.m., 25 new deaths have been reported since Tuesday.

Sixteen deaths were reported from Maharashtra, two each from Delhi, West Bengal, Haryana and Tamil Nadu and one from Andhra Pradesh.

Maharashtra has reported the most coronavirus deaths at 64, followed by Gujarat  and Madhya Pradesh at 13 each and Delhi at 9.

Telengana, Punjab and Tamil Nadu have reported seven fatalities each.

West Bengal has registered five deaths, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh have reported four each, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Rajasthan have recorded three deaths each.

Two deaths each have been reported from Jammu and Kashmir and Kerala.

Bihar, Himachal Pradesh and Odisha reported one fatality each, according to the health ministry data.

However, a PTI tally of figures reported by various states as on Tuesday 9.45 p.m. showed 5,192 testing positive across the country and at least 162 deaths.

There has been a lag in the Union Health Ministry figures, compared to the numbers announced by different states, which officials attribute to procedural delays in assigning the cases to individual states.

The highest number of confirmed cases in the country are from Maharashtra at 1018, followed by Tamil Nadu at 690 and Delhi with 576 cases.

Telengana has reported 364 COVID-19 cases followed by Kerala at 336.

Rajasthan has 328 cases, Uttar Pradesh has 326 and Andhra Pradesh reported 305 coronavirus cases.

Novel coronavirus cases have risen to 229 in Madhya Pradesh, 175 in Karnataka and 165 in Gujarat.

Haryana has 147 cases, Jammu and Kashmir has 116, West Bengal has 99 and Punjab has 91 positive patients so far. Odisha has reported 42 coronavirus cases.

Thirty- eight people were infected with the virus in Bihar while Uttarakhand has 31 patients and Assam 27.

Chandigarh  and Himachal Pradesh have 18 cases each while Ladakh has 14 positive patients so far.

Ten cases each have been reported from the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Chhattisgarh. 

Goa has reported seven COVID-19 infections, followed by Puducherry at five cases. Jharkhand has reported four cases and Manipur two. 

Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh have reported one case each.

"State-wise distribution is subject to further verification and reconciliation," the ministry said on its website.