UP CM sacks minister for asking Muslims to help build temple in Ayodhya

New Delhi, May 4: The government has not talked about charging anything from migrant labourers as 85 per cent of the transportation cost is borne by the railways and 15 per cent by state governments, the Centre said on Monday amid a row over the national transporter allegedly charging the workers for ferrying them home during the COVID-19-induced lockdown.

The government also said the process of transporting the stranded migrant labourers was being coordinated by states “except for one or two states”.

Asked if the migrant labourers were being charged for being ferried home, Joint Secretary at the Health Ministry Lav Agarwal said that as far as migrant labourers are concerned, the guidelines have clearly stated that under the infectious disease management one should stay where he or she is.

“Based on the request given from states for particular cases, permission was given to run special trains. Be it government of India or the Railways, we have not talked about charging from workers. Eighty-five per cent of the transportation cost is borne by the Railways, while states have to bear 15 per cent of the cost,” he told reporters.

“Based on the request of the states the process that started, under which limited number of stranded migrant labourers have to be transported for a particular reason, is being coordinated by the state governments, except for one or two states,” Agarwal said.

At the daily briefing on the COVID-19 situation, Agarwal also said that in the last 24 hours, 1,074 COVID-19 patients have recovered, the highest number of recoveries in one day.

The recovery rate stands at 27.52 per cent with 11,706 COVID-19 patients cured till now, he said.

Agarwal said in the last 24 hours, 2,553 novel coronavirus cases were reported, taking the number of overall cases to 42,533. The total number of active cases stands at 29,453, he said.

The joint secretary also said that the COVID-19 curve is relatively flat as of now and it was not right to talk in terms of when the peak would come.

“If we collectively work then the peak might not ever come, while if we fail in any way we might experience a spike in cases,” he said.

Amitabh Kant, Chairman of the Empowered Group dealing with civil society, NGOs, industries and international partners, said in 112 aspirational districts, “we worked with the collectors and in these 112 districts only 610 cases have been reported which is two per cent of the national level infection”.

In these 112 districts, 22 per cent of India's population resides, he said.

In a few districts like Baramulla, Nuh Rachi, Kupwara and Jaisalmer more than 30 cases have been reported, while in the rest of the places very few cases are there, Kant said.

New Delhi, Feb 8: Arvind Kejriwal is set to return as Delhi chief minister and his Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) will virtually sweep the assembly elections, exit polls predicted Saturday.

As polling came to a close at 6 pm, with the Election Commission of India (ECI) projecting a voter turnout at 60.24% (as of 9:50 pm), a poll of polls covering 10 exit polls gave 52 seats to AAP, 17 to the Bharatiya Janata Party and one to the Indian National Congress.

The polls, which are sample surveys conducted among voters exiting polling booths, signalled that the Delhi voter responded to AAP’s campaign that focused on “kaam”, or getting work done.

Kejriwal, a former civil servant and activist who stormed into electoral politics with an anti-corruption campaign in 2013, led a campaign focusing on the development work his government did in Delhi, especially in education and healthcare, as well as sops such as lower electricity bills and free bus rides for women.

The exit polls gave AAP between 47 and 68 seats in the 70-member Assembly.

They predicted an absolute rout for Congress, which ruled Delhi for three terms between 1998 and 2013. The maximum seats to AAP were given by India Today TV-Axis exit poll, which predicted 59-68 seats for the party, while giving 2-11 for the BJP and none to the Congress.

If these figures hold, the results will come as a disappointment for the BJP, which had hoped its sweep in the Lok Sabha elections in 2019 would reflect in the assembly polls.

Delhi’s voter turnout saw a sharp fall over the 2015 elections. According to the Election Commission of India, voter turnout till 9 pm was projected at 60.24% — lower than 67.12% in 2015.

Traditionally, a lower voter turnout is read as a vote for the incumbent.

The voter turnout in Delhi has been similar during the Congress regime under Sheila Dikshit, when she won consecutive terms. In 2003, when Delhi voted a second time for the Dikshit government, the voter turnout was 53.42%, and a comparable 57.58% was the turnout in 2008.

Later, in two consecutive elections — 2013 and 2015 — voters turned out in big numbers to vote Dikshit out of power. In 2013, 65.63% of Delhi turned out and the percentage increased further to 67.12% in 2015.

Across constituencies, Matia Mahal in Central Delhi registered the highest voter turnout of 68.36%, whereas Bawana assembly constituency in North district saw the lowest turnout at 41.95%. Among districts, North East district registered the highest (62.75%) voter turnout, while the lowest turnout was recorded in South East district (54.15%), according to the ECI app.

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.