Good news for NRIs: Indian govt defers controversial ECNR registration

Bengaluru, Feb 29: The BJP leaders in Karnataka rallied behind Vijayapura MLA Basanagouda Patil Yatnal amid a controversy over his remarks that centenarian freedom fighter HS Doreswamy was a "Pakistani agent."

The saffron party leaders have extended support to Yatnal, days after he called Doreswamy a "fake freedom fighter" who behaves like a "Pakistani agent".

Yatnal made the comments at a press conference on February 25 while reacting to a query on a public meeting organised by the Congress titled 'Save the Constitution'.

"There are many fake freedom fighters. There is one in Bengaluru. Now we have to say what Doreswamy is. Where is that old man? He behaves like a Pakistan agent," Patil had said.

"Doreswamy is an elderly person and senior to all. He had participated in various agitations. He should also see what to talk and who will be hurt with those statements. We have all seen what he said about Prime Minister Narendra Modi," Primary and Secondary Education Minister S Suresh Kumar told reporters in Kodagu on Saturday reacting to Yatnal's outburst against Doreswamy.

Noting that the statements were made in bitter taste, Kumar said, "If you speak unpleasant (things), you will hear unpleasant."

Bellary City MLA G Somashekara Reddy too backed Yatnal saying that the his statement was appropriate. "There is nothing wrong in his statement. It is absolutely correct. I support him. It is not just okay to be a freedom fighter, but he should be a 'Deshbhakt' (patriot) too, who respects the unity and integrity of the nation."

On Friday, another BJP Minister KS Eshwarappa slammed Doreswamy alleging that he had visited Amulya Leona's residence and shared a good relationship with her family.

Leona had raised 'Pakistan Zindabad' slogans at an anti-CAA event here on February 21, taking everybody present by shock and dismay.

"We respect Doreswamy but he dances to the tune of Congress and supports whatever their leaders say," Eshwarappa said.

Bengaluru, Mar 28: Karnataka Director General of Police Praveen Sood on Saturday asked philanthropists who want to support the poor during the lockdown to leave food at the nearby police station, who will ensure that it reaches the needy.

The DGP has asked the Bengaluru City police Commissioner to take steps in this regard and ensure fair distribution.

"All philanthropists, in case you want to support poor. Leave cooked, packed, simple food at the police station and it will reach poor. @CPBlr pl announce a nodal officer for deciding the police station for fair distribution," Sood wrote on his official twitter handle.

Responding to the DGP's tweet, city police Commissioner Bhaskar Rao appointed Joint Commissioner (Crime) as a nodal officer.

"Sandeep Patil, IPS, Joint Commissioner, CRIME at 9480801011 is the officer nominated from Bangalore City Police to receive and acknowledge donation of food and consumables for distribution to police and those in need," Rao tweeted.

Meanwhile, the city police has also initiated measures to take those in critical medical emergency to the nearest medical facility.

"We @BlrCityPolice are at your service 24/7 to take you to nearest medical facility in critical medical emergency, dialysis, chemo, emergent heart issues etc PLEASE CALL 100 Misuse may affect someones life! Be responsible #CoronaLockdown is National Duty #Covid19India," Additional Commissioner of Police (Administration), Bengaluru, Hemant Nimbalkar tweeted.

Bengaluru police's initiative of distributing food, snacks, water and certain essential requirements to those in need has received wide appreciation.

While some police stations are already providing food to poor and those in need by collecting it from sponsors, couple of them have even hired a cook for the needy.

The lockdown has affected the poor who depend on their daily wages for livelihood.

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.