Zaman’s onslaught helps Pak defeat Australia, win T20 tri-series title

British lawmaker Debbie Abrahams' e-Business visa was revoked as she was involved in anti-India activities and the cancellation was conveyed to her on February 14, government sources said on Tuesday.

Asserting that the grant, rejection or revocation of a visa or electronic travel authorisation is the sovereign right of a country, the sources said Abrahams was issued an e-Business visa on October 7 last year which was valid till October 5, 2020 for attending business meetings.

"Her e-Business visa was revoked on February 14, 2020 on account of her indulging in activities which went against India's national interest. The rejection of the e-Business visa was intimated to her on February 14," a source said.

Abrahams, who chairs a British parliamentary group on Kashmir, was denied entry into India upon her arrival at the New Delhi airport on Monday.

Government officials had said on Monday also that she was informed in advance that her e-visa had been cancelled.

Potchefstroom, Feb 9: Defending champions India are overwhelming favourites to win a record fifth U19 World Cup title on Sunday but a tough fight is expected from first-timers Bangladesh in an all-Asian final.

If the India squad for the 2018 edition had the likes of Prithvi Shaw and Shubman Gill, who have expectedly gone on to play for the senior team, the exploits of opener Yashasvi Jaiswal, spinner Ravi Bishnoi and pacer Kartik Tyagi in the current edition have made them overnight stars.

Irrespective of what happens in the final, India have reinforced the fact that they are undisputed leaders at the under-19 level and the cricketing structure the BCCI has developed is working better than any other board in the world.

India, who walloped arch-rivals Pakistan by 10 wickets in the semifinal Tuesday, will be playing their seventh final since 2000 when they lifted the trophy for the first time.

Having said that, success at the U-19 level doesn’t guarantee success at the highest level as not all players have the ability to go on and play for India. Some also lose their way like Unmukt Chand did after leading India to the title in 2012.

His career promised so much back then but now it has come to a stage where he is struggling to make the eleven in Uttarakhand’s Ranji Trophy team, having shifted base from Delhi last year.

Only the exceptionally talented like Shaw and Gill get to realise their dream as the competition is only getting tougher in the ever-improving Indian cricket.

India probably is the only side which fields a fresh squad in every U-19 World Cup edition and since there is no dearth of talent and a proper structure is in place, the talent keeps coming up.

“The fact that we allow a cricketer to play the U-19 World Cup only once is a big reason behind the team’s success. While most teams have cricketers who have played in the previous edition,” India U-19 fielding coach Abhay Sharma said from Potchefstroom.

“It just goes to show that the system under the visionary leadership of Rahul Dravid (NCA head) is flourishing. Credit to BCCI as well that other teams want to follow our structure.”

Heading to the mega event, India colts played about 30-odd games in different part of the world. To get used to the South African conditions, they played a quadrangular series before they played their World Cup opener against Sri Lanka.

In the final, India run into Bangladesh, a team which too has reaped the benefits of meticulous planning since their quarterfinal loss at the 2018 edition.

Though the Priyam Garg-led Indian side got the better of them in the tri-series in England and Asia Cup last year, Bangladesh has always come up with a fight and fielding coach Sharma expects it would be no different Sunday.

They are a very good side. There is a lot of mutual respect. I can tell you that,” he said.

Considering it is their maiden final, it is a bigger game for Bangladesh. If they win, it will be sweet revenge against the sub-continental giants, who have found a way to tame Bangladesh at the senior level in close finals including the 2018 Nidahas Trophy and 2016 World T20.

“We don’t want to take unwanted pressure. India is a very good side. We have to play our ‘A’ game and do well in all three departments. Our fans are very passionate about their cricket. I would want to tell them, keep supporting us,” said Bangladesh skipper Akbar Ali after their semifinal win over New Zealand.

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.