Women have more chances of getting raped than being educated

New Delhi, Jan 11: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the curative petition of two death row convicts in 2012 Nirbhaya gang-rape case on January 14.

A five-judge Bench of Justices N V Ramana, Arun Mishra, R F Nariman, R Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan will hear the petition filed by Vinay Sharma and Mukesh.

The duo had moved a curative petition in the top court after a Delhi court issued a death warrant in their name and announced January 22 as the date of their execution.

Besides them, two other convicts named Pawan and Akshay are also slated to be executed on the same day at 7 am in Delhi's Tihar Jail premises.

They were convicted and sentenced to death for raping a 23-year-old woman on a moving bus in the national capital on the night of December 16, 2012.

The victim, who was later given the name Nirbhaya, died at a hospital in Singapore where she had been airlifted for medical treatment.

A curative petition is the last judicial resort available for redressal of grievances. It is decided by the judges in-chamber.

If it is rejected, they are legally bound to move a mercy petition. It is filed before the President who has the power to commute it to life imprisonment.

The court after issuing a black warrant in their name gave them two weeks' time to file both the curative and mercy petition.

India will suspend all domestic flights from midnight Tuesday, the final piece of a nationwide lockdown that threatens Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attempts to revive an economy already expanding at the slowest pace in more than a decade.

The flight ban compliments a cancellation of all passenger trains through March 31, as authorities try to halt the spread of the coronavirus in the world’s second-most populous country, which has poorly equipped hospitals and inadequate social security. Modi on Monday held a conference call with some of India’s top entrepreneurs and bankers, who urged policymakers to immediately slash interest rates by as much as a full percentage point, transfer cash to the poorest citizens, and suspend loan-repayments.

Over the past three days, state after state has declared curfews and India’s international borders have been shut for most visitors since March 11. India so far has 492 virus cases, including nine deaths. But experts say the country could be on the same trajectory as Italy, where the outbreak quickly escalated, causing hospitals to overflow.
A traveller stands outside a near-empty Delhi Junction Railway Station in Delhi, March 22.

"This is the biggest lockdown in world history,” said Raghu Raman, a former soldier with the Indian Army and founder of the National Intelligence Grid, an umbrella database aimed at countering terrorism. “This strategic pause gives decision-makers more time to arrest the exponential spread of the virus and evaluate trade-offs.”

Controlling the outbreak is crucial for Modi, who remains India’s most popular political leader currently though his economic management has faced criticism. Foreign investors are selling Indian assets at an unprecedented pace and failure to contain deaths and infections could erode some of the prime minister’s personal appeal at home.

Oxford Economics slashed India’s January-March growth forecast to 3%, a number not seen even during the worst of the global financial crisis. The main equity gauge rose about 3% on Tuesday after a record 13.2% plunge Monday, and the rupee stayed near its all-time low.

“A part of the cerebral cortex that senses fear and survival seems to have activated in the minds of investors,” said Umesh Mehta, Mumbai-based head of research at Samco Securities Ltd. “The only relief in this market can come from either policy makers and regulators, or from some positive news that a cure for the pandemic is near.”

Bloomberg Economics estimates Modi’s administration needs at least 1% of gross domestic product -- $30 billion -- to meaningfully respond to the virus outbreak. Meanwhile, the nation’s billionaires are diverting their factories to manufacture medical equipment and pledging to keep paying their staff even as production grinds to a halt. India allowed companies to use their philanthropy funds to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Reliance Industries Ltd., controlled by India’s richest man Mukesh Ambani, has helped equip a hospital in Mumbai dedicated to patients of Covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. It will also build quarantine centers and produce 100,000 facemasks a day and other personal protective equipment for health workers. The group’s telecom unit will offer free broadband to enable work-from-home during the lockdown and will pay its lowest paid workers twice a month to protect household incomes.

Ambani joins Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Chairman Anand Mahindra and Vedanta Resources Ltd. Chairman Anil Agarwal -- a combined worth of more than $40 billion between the trio -- who have so far made pledges.

Indian companies are responding to Modi’s shutdown call. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Tata Motors Ltd., Toyota Kirloskar Motor, Hero MotoCorp., Samsung Electronics Co. and LG Electronics Inc., Mahindra Group, TVS Motor Co., Kia Motors Corp., Renault Nissan Automotive India Private Ltd., and Yamaha Motor India are among companies that have announced factory suspensions.

Policymakers are aware of the risks of such a move. India -- with a record 5.9 trillion rupees of local corporate debt maturing this year -- faces “waves of default” if cash flows aren’t maintained, the government’s principal economic adviser Sanjeev Sanyal said an interview.

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman last week said the government will announce a relief package for coronavirus-affected sectors as soon as possible. The Reserve Bank of India, which is due to review interest rates April 3, announced a 1 trillion rupee cash injection on Monday.

“Let me assure, whatever it takes to keep the cash flow going in the economy will be done,” Sanyal said. “We need to make sure that when we are past the health storm, we still have an economy that has not gotten gridlocked. Because unwinding that would be more difficult.”

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.