Yes Bank's Rana Kapoor taken to ED’s Mumbai office for further questioning

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.

UN, May 26: Countries could see a "second peak" of coronavirus cases during the first wave of the pandemic if lockdown restrictions were lifted too soon, the World Health Organization (WHO) has warned.

Mike Ryan, the WHO's head of emergencies, told a briefing on Monday that the world was "right in the middle of the first wave", the BBC reported.

He said because the disease was "still on the way up", countries need to be aware that "the disease can jump up at any time".

"We cannot make assumptions that just because the disease is on the way down now that it's going to keep going down," Ryan said.

There would be a number of months to prepare for a second peak, he added.

The stark warning comes as countries around the world start to gradually ease lockdown restrictions, allowing shops to reopen and larger groups of people to gather.

Experts have said that without a vaccine to give people immunity, infections could increase again when social-distancing measures are relaxed.

Ryan said countries where cases are declining should be using this time to develop effective trace-and-test regimes to "ensure that we continue on a downwards trajectory and we don't have an immediate second peak".

Also on Monday, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General, said that a clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) on COVID-19 patients has come to "a temporary pause", while the safety data of the the anti-malaria drug was being reviewed.

According to the WHO chief, The Lancet medical journal on May 22 had published an observational study on HCQ and chloroquine and its effects on COVID-19 patients that have been hospitalized, reports Xinhua news agency.

The authors of the study reported that among patients receiving the drug, when used alone or with a macrolide, they estimated a higher mortality rate.

"The Executive Group of the Solidarity Trial, representing 10 of the participating countries, met on Saturday (May 23) and has agreed to review a comprehensive analysis and critical appraisal of all evidence available globally," Tedros said in a virtual press conference.

The developments come as the total number of global COVID-19 cases has increased to 5,508,904, with 346,508 deaths, according to the Johns Hopkins University.

New Delhi, Jan 19: Reacting to a tweet by ace lawyer Indira Jaising urging her to forgive the four men on death row for brutally raping that finally took her life, Nirbhaya's mother said on Saturday: "Even if God asks me, I won't forgive them."

Speaking to news agency, over the phone, the mother who had been fighting for seven long years to send her daughter's killers to the gallows, said, "...even if god comes and asks me to forgive them, I will not. People like these (Jaising) are a blot on the society."

Commenting on Jaising's tweet, she said: "Who is she to tell or suggest to me to forgive them. What relation does she have with me. I have nothing to do with such people. She can be a relative of those (the convicts) that she is having a soft corner for."

"She is an insult to women. She is running a business in the name of human rights. She is a veteran, she should give a message to the society. But she instead will go against her own kind," she added.

Earlier in the day, Jaising had requested Nirbhaya's mother to follow the example of Congress president Sonia Gandhi, who had moved for the clemency of a woman, Nalini Murugan convicted for the assassination of her husband and former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.

"While I fully identify with the pain of Nirbhaya's mother I urge her to follow the example of Sonia Gandhi who forgave Nalini and said she didn't want the death penalty for her. We are with you but against death penalty," Jaising tweeted on Friday.

A Delhi Court on Friday issued fresh death warrants against the four convicts -- Akshay, Pawan, Mukesh and Vinay in the Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case.

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Satish Kumar Arora fixed 1 February as the date of execution of the four death row convicts. They will be hanged at 6am.

The move came after the prosecution moved an application seeking issuance of fresh death warrants following the rejection of the mercy plea of one of the convicts Mukesh by President Ram Nath Kovind.

The 23-year-old victim was brutally gang-raped and tortured on December 16, 2012, which later led to her death.

All the six accused were arrested and charged with sexual assault and murder. One of the accused was a minor and appeared before a juvenile justice court, while another accused committed suicide in Tihar Jail.

Four of the convicts were sentenced to death by a trial court in September 2013, and the verdict was confirmed by the Delhi High Court in March 2014 and upheld by the Supreme Court in May 2017, which also dismissed their review petitions.