Huge cache of weapons, steel bombs seized from BJP office in Kannur

Mangaluru, Jan 1: On the first day of 2020, Bajpe Police became somewhat of a Guardian Angel for a college student, who was wandering around the city in the wee hours of Wednesday, convincing and escorting him to his home safely, after coming to know about his residence.

According to Bajpe Police Probationary Sub-Inspector Anita Nikkam and Police Officer Devappa Hosamani, they noticed a youth, hailing from Handelu in Todaru and studying in a college at Moodbidri, wandering at around 0245 hrs.

When asked about his whereabouts, the boy did not respond initially. However, police managed to collect his address and his mother's phone number after half an hour of interrogation.

New Delhi, Feb 4: Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath on Monday accused Arvind Kejriwal of having a "partnership" with Pakistan and appealed to the people in Delhi to not vote for the AAP chief as it will make Pakistan happy.

Ramping up his attack on the Shaheen Bagh protest, Adityanath said that the protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) is merely an excuse for people to vent their anger against the scrapping of Article 370.

"You must have seen their partnership on 370. Arvind Kejriwal used to speak in the same voice as Imran Khan on Article 370. You must have heard it.

"Now when elections are taking place in Delhi, who is speaking in favour of Arvind Kejriwal? It is the ministers of Pakistan. They are aware that Kejriwal is feeding 'biryani to protesters at Shaheen Bagh'," he said, referring to Pakistan minister Fawad Chaudhry's tweet asking Indians to defeat Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Adityanath addressed three rallies on Monday in the national capital ahead of assembly elections.

"Will Pakistan decide who Indians should vote for. If voting for Kejriwal will make Pakistan happy, should it be done," he asked at a rally in Mehrauli.

Adityanath said his Delhi counterpart Kejriwal has become a "toy in the hands of anti-social and anti-India elements".

Addressing a rally in Vikaspuri in west Delhi, he said that Kejriwal is not bothered about key issues such as providing clean drinking water but is concerned about Shaheen Bagh, the anti-citizenship amendment act protest site.

At another rally in Uttam Nagar in west Delhi, Adityanath said Kejriwal has played with the emotions of the people of Delhi for the last five years.

"He obstructed the development of Delhi. And knowingly and unknowingly, he became a toy in the hands of anti-social and anti-India elements," Adityanath said.

The protest at Shaheen Bagh, he said, has disrupted traffic across the capital.

"A guest with an appointment to meet him at 9.30 am could only reach at 11. He told me he had left as early as 7 am but got stuck because of the traffic in Shaheen Bagh," he said.

The Uttar Pradesh chief minister also slammed Kejriwal for "sympathising" with elements who he said gave anti-India slogans in Jawaharlal Nehru University.

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.