Hope no Kejriwal will emerge from my movement again: Anna Hazare

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.

Wayanad, Mar 3: Anguished over the alleged delay in receiving flood relief from the Kerala government, a 42-year-old man committed suicide in Wayanad district, police said on Tuesday. Sanal Kumar, a native of Thrikaipatta in Meppadi near here was found hanging inside the temporary shelter built by his friends and local people on Monday. He was among the hundreds who had lost their homes in the August 2019 floods.

His home, built on a three cent plot, had been damaged partially in 2018 floods and completely in the 2019 deluge. Family members of the deceased alleged that it was due undue delay on the part of the authorities in allotting funds for rebuilding his house that drove Kumar to take the extreme step. Kumar was hoping to get a house under the Life Mission project, sources said.

A relative said Kumar had only 3 cent of land and had lot of debts. Even the Rs 10,000 assistance promised by the state government for the flood affected, had not reached him. Since the past two years he had filed several applications for assistance and apporached many revenue authroties for the promised government assistance, but it never came, the locals alleged.

According to K K Sahad, president of Meppadi Panchayat the deceased had some other financial issues and it was not the delay in rehabilitation that made him commit suicide. "It is true that he was not included in the first list of beneficiaries under the LIFE project as he had to have "pattayam" (land records) for his land.

However, he was included in the second list, thanks to the dilution in the norms that possession was enough for those who had no 'pattayam' for their property. The amount of Rs 4 lakhs was sanctioned for him, but was delayed a bit due to some technical issues."

Wayanad MLA C K Saseendran described it as an "extremely sad" development. As Kumar had some difficulties in producing the land recrods, the authroties had been unable to include his name in the LIFE housing scheme in the first phase.

The matter has been brought before the notice of the revenue authorities, he said. Vythiri Tahsildar, Abdul Hameed, visited Kumar's relatives this morning as the family members of the deceased wanted his presence before the body was taken for post-mortem.

"There was some technical issues with regard to the land as it falls within the adhivasi reserve. But they were occupying it for long. However, the issue has been sorted out and that his family members would be getting the eligibility amount of four lakhs," Hameed said.

Shirdi, Jan 19: Shirdi in Maharashtra will remain closed for an indefinite period from today in the wake of state Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray's decision to develop Pathri town in Parbhani district as Sai Baba's birthplace.

However, Deepak Madukar Muglikar, Chief Executive Officer of Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust, has said that Sai Baba Temple in Shirdi will remain open today and will not be impacted by the closure of the city.

"There are some reports in media that Sai Temple in Shirdi will remain closed on January 19. I want to clarify that it is just a rumor. Temple will remain open on January 19," Mr Muglikar said.

A call has been given for indefinite closure of Shirdi after Mr Thackeray's reported comment terming Pathri in Parbhani as Sai Baba's birthplace.

"Devotees will not face any difficulty if they come to Shirdi," said B Wakchaure, member of Saibaba Sansthan Trust.

Uddhav Thackeray has recently announced that Pathri will be developed as the birthplace of Sai Baba for religious tourism and also took a review meeting of the development plans in the Parbhani district.

One of the most popular religious destinations in the country, Saibaba Temple in Shirdi witnesses lakh of devotees visiting the holy site every year.