As 3 MLAs resign, Congress moves its Gujarat flock to resorts ahead of RS 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.

The Retailers Association of India (RAI) has said that ad hoc lockdowns by state governments are impacting the businesses of already-stressed retailers, along with hurting the economic revival of the country.

In a statement, the body of the organised retail industry said that the long road to recovery for the Indian retail industry continues to meet stumbling blocks with numerous restrictions being imposed at the state and local levels.

"Total lockdowns in some places and limited operational hours and days in several others are creating setbacks for retailers as the already stressed retail businesses are getting further interrupted and in turn, dampening consumer sentiment," it said.

According to RAI, although the intentions are that of citizen safety and social distancing, the recent instances of local lockdowns and ad hoc restrictions being imposed in Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka are having a distressing impact on retail businesses.

Retailers are already facing huge setbacks in terms of payment of wages and rentals due to very low sales of about 40 per cent as compared to last year, thanks to the extended lockdown, it said.

Contesting the restrictions on operating hours, Sandeep Kataria, CEO, Bata India said: "Restricted shopping time can lead to unnecessary overcrowding of stores, which is unfavourable towards the personal safety of both store staff and customers. Longer operational hours will support recovery for retailers as well as help adhering to social distancing norms."

Arvind Mediratta, MD and CEO, METRO Cash & Carry India said that these lockdowns will create severe inconvenience for all citizens as they also bar operations of food and grocery retail and wholesale stores.

Such hastily-implemented decisions by states undermine investor confidence and would come in the way of making the country "aatmanirbhar" or self-reliant, he said.

Voicing the concerns of retailers, the RAI has submitted representations to various state and local authorities that puts forth recommendations to get businesses and life of consumers on the track to recovery.

It has said that authorities should mandatorily allow essential shops including kiranas, general trade shops, supermarkets, hypermarkets and wholesalers to operate every day of the week until 9 p.m. to cater to the daily needs of the customers.

It has also sought ensuring uniform and regular opening of all categories of retail for full working hours while following stringent hygiene practices and adhering to social distancing norms. This will help avoid overcrowding outside stores as demand will get distributed over all days of the week, it said.

The industry body has also asked the local authorities to open malls in all states. Malls can ensure a safe shopping experience wherein safety measures are taken by both, the mall authorities and the retailers, it said.

Kumar Rajagopalan, CEO, RAI, said: "The need of the hour is concerted efforts by all stakeholders. While retailers are doing their bit by following stringent hygiene practices, the policymakers too need to support to ensure economic revival across the country. Consumption is important for the country and supports the business environment."

New Delhi, Mar 11: A doctor in Kerala on Tuesday alleged that she was sacked by the management of the private clinic she was working with for informing authorities about a non-resident Indian (NRI) patient who reportedly declined to undergo the mandatory check for coronavirus.

Dr Shinu Syamalan said the patient had come to the clinic recently with suspected symptoms of the virus.

"When he was asked whether he had visited any foreign countries, he said he was coming from Qatar. But he had not reported to the Health department about his foreign trip," she said.

When he was directed to inform about his foreign travel to the state Health Department, which has been monitoring people coming from abroad for the virus, he refused and said he was going back to Qatar, she told reporters.

Concerned over the health of the person who had high fever, Ms Syamalan informed health and police authorities.

"Officials who let the patient go abroad do not have any problem, but I have become jobless," she posted on social media.

She alleged she was sacked by the management of the clinic for reporting the matter to police and informing the public about the incident through social media and through television.

"The argument of the management is that no one would turn up for treatment in the clinic if they come to know that it was visited by patients with suspected symptoms of Coronavirus," she said.

There was no immediate reaction from the management of the private health clinic.

Official sources said the District Medical Officer (DMO) at Thrissur has complained to the collector against Shinu Syamalan accusing her of defaming health officials.