Amit Shah to kick off BJP's poll campaign in Karnataka with yatra

Bhopal, Mar 11: After meeting with 19 party MLAs who have tendered their resignations, Congress leader Sajjan Singh Verma on Wednesday said they are neither willing to support Jyotiraditya Scindia nor in favour of joining BJP as they were "misled and taken to Bengaluru" in Karnataka.

"Nobody is ready to go with Scindia ji. They said they were misled and taken to Bengaluru, most of them said they are not ready to join BJP," Verma told media persons on being asked about the 19 MLAs.

"I just came from Bengaluru and now I am going to Jaipur. Besides 5-6 ministers and one MLA, we all are going to Jaipur. They (MLAs) have said they have the blood of Congress and they will remain in the party. 
Since Scindia was a senior party leader, all our MLAs followed his order as a courtesy," he said.

The Congress leader further claimed that BJP is using both "muscle and money power" to influence Congress MLAs.

He also claimed that he is strongly in contact with 7-8 BJP MLAs.

On Tuesday, Congress sent two of its leaders -- Verma and Govind Singh -- to Bengaluru in order to pacify some of the rebel MLAs who are lodged in a hotel there and who claimed to have resigned from the state Legislative Assembly.

Most of the rebel MLAs are perceived close to Scindia and are apparently unhappy at Scindia being "ignored" in the party. The grand old party has been witnessing an internal turf war in Madhya Pradesh since the party formed the government in the state in 2018.

Scindia is likely to join BJP later today.

Chennai, Jan 19: Amid ongoing nationwide protests against Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman on Sunday said that as many as 2838 people from Pakistan were given citizenship during the last six years.

"In the last six years, as many as 2838 Pakistani refugees, 914 Afghan refugees, 172 Bangladeshi refugees including Muslims have been given Indian citizenship. From 1964 to 2008, more than 4,00,000 Tamils (from Sri Lanka) have been given Indian citizenship," Sitharaman said at 'Programme on Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019' event here.

She added, "Till 2014, over 566 Muslims from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan were given Indian citizenship. During 2016-18 under Modi government, around 1595 Pakistani migrants and 391 Afghanistani Muslims were given Indian citizenship."

The minister, further, said, "It was also during the same period in 2016, that Adnan Sami was given Indian citizenship, this is an example."    

Sitharaman added that people who came from East Pakistan have been settled at various camps in the country.

"They are still there and it's been 50-60 years now. If you visit these camps, your heart will cry. The situation is the same with Sri Lankan refugees who continue to live in camps. They're barred from getting basic facilities," she said.

Asserting that the government is not snatching away anyone's citizenship, the BJP leader said: "This Citizenship (Amendment) Act is an attempt to provide people with a better life. We are not snatching away anyone's citizenship, we are only providing them that."

"The National Population Register (NPR) will be updated every 10 years and is not involved with the National Register of Citizens (NRC). Some are involved in raising false allegations and triggering people unnecessarily without any base," she added.

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.