Babri case: Muslim board denies meeting Ravi Shankar for out of court solution

New Delhi, Feb 5: AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi on Wednesday expressed his suspicion over the government using force to clear the Shaheen Bagh stretch where an agitation has been ongoing for over 50 days against Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

While speaking to ANI over the phone, Owaisi was asked that there are indications from the government that after February 8, Shaheen Bagh will be cleared.

In reply, he said, "Might be they will shoot them, they might turn Shaheen Bagh into Jallianwala Bagh. This might happen. BJP minister gave a statement to 'shoot a bullet'. The government must give an answer as (to) who is radicalising."

Further speaking about NPR and NRC, Owaisi said, "Government must give a clear cut answer that till 2024 NRC will not be implemented. Why are they spending Rs 3900 crore for NPR? I feel this way because I was a History student. Hitler during his reign conducted census twice and after that, he pushed the jews in a gas chamber. I don't want our country (to) go in that way."

New Delhi, Feb 28: The Congress on Friday reacted sharply to the petition in the court seeking registration of a First Information Report against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra for alleged hate speeches. It said the petition was to save BJP leaders Pravesh Verma, Anurag Thakur and Kapil Mishra, referring to the trio as "PAK".

Congress leader Jaiveer Shergil told news agency, "It is political interest litigation to hide the failure of the government and to put a lid on the BJP's involvement in fuelling the fire in Delhi riots.

"This is to hide and save BJP's PAK -- Pravesh, Anurag and Kapil," said Shergil.

The BJP has two parameters, the laws for the common man and citizens of the country are different from those for the BJP leaders, added Mr Shergil.

The Delhi High Court on Friday issued notices on a petition for the registration of an FIR against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and others on charges of delivering hate speeches.

Congress said that the PIL was politically motivated and the inaction on the hate speeches made by the BJP leaders, which led to the riots, was shocking.

"When there are 48 cases registered, why three cases against the BJP leaders are not registered," asked Mr Shergil.

A Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel sought responses from the Central and Delhi governments apart from Delhi Police on a petition filed by Lawyers Voice. The matter will again be heard on April 13.

The petition also sought a case against Aam Aadmi Party leaders Manish Sisodia and Amanatullah Khan, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen leaders Akbaruddin Owaisi and Waris Pathan, and lawyer Mehmood Paracha.

"Issue directions to constitute an SIT to look into these hate speeches and take appropriate action. Issue direction to register an FIR against those named in the petition," the petition said.

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.