I am not joining BJP: Sachin Pilot

Feb 29: The "Dadi of Shaheenbagh" on Friday said that Prime Minister Narendra Modi does not understand the pain of losing children, as speakers at an anti-CAA rally here called on protesters to maintain peace and not give in to any provocation.

Tushar Gandhi, the great-grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, said that the battle is not for a day or two, but the protesters will have to be prepared to continue it for years to come.

Asma Khatoon, who has earned fame as the "Dadi of Shaheenbagh" in Delhi, asked how can a person take care of the whole country when he cannot maintain his own family.

"He would have realised how it feels to lose a child if he had his own children," she told a gathering at the Park Circus Maidan, which is being termed as the Shaheenbagh of Kolkata with women holding a sit-in for the last 53 days to protest the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, proposed nationwide NRC, and the NPR.

The death toll Delhi's communal violence has gone up to 42.

She said it is not biryani that has attracted women to the protest at Shaheen bagh while holding that such vilification campaigns will have no effect on the agitation.

State BJP president Dilip Ghosh has claimed that "uneducated men and women" are protesting at Delhi's Shaheen Bagh and Kolkata's Park Circus as they get money and biryani purchased with foreign funds.

"Home Minister Amit Shah has called 20 protesters to meet him, but I want to tell him that we are one lakh and I want him to mention the place where he wants us to go for the meeting," she said.

Tushar Gandhi said, "People should stay united and not give in to any provocation," he said.

Gandhi said that the people of West Bengal are lucky to have Mamata Banerjee as their chief minister.

"They will try to break her also and it is necessary that you continue to give her support," he said.

Gandhi claimed that no one can harm a country where its mothers and sisters come out to save it.

He claimed that the CAA is not about Hindus or Muslims, but will really affect the poor people, who will be made to run around to get their papers instead of earning for their basic and daily needs.

"It's a dichotomous government that we have at the Centre. On the one hand, they want us to provide documents to prove our citizenship, while on the other they refuse to accept the papers that one produces before it for the purpose," he said.

He claimed that the government is forcing its people to resort to lies and declare that they are political refugees from countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Gandhi claimed that time and again documents with the government like electoral rolls and land documents have been used to identify people of certain communities during riots.

"So it is dangerous to give too much information to the government," he said.

He called on the people to have faith in non-violence and asked them to maintain peace and harmony.

B R Ambedkar's great-grandson Rajratna Ambedkar claimed that it is the Adivasis who will also be affected by the CAA.

"I want to tell Modi and Shah that the country runs on the Constitution by Ambedkar and not M S Golwalkar (of RSS)," he said, adding that because of the rights conferred on people by the Constitution, those backward people who did not have the right to sit on a bullock cart are now flying jet planes.

He said that Modi and Shah committed an error by enacting the CAA as it has turned the people of the country into Indians only, instead of Hindus, Muslims, Christians or Sikhs.

"Every machinery of the country has been taken control of by the RSS. If one Modi or one Shah goes, they will bring in several more Modi or Shah," he 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.

New Delhi, Mar 4: A court in Delhi on Wednesday convicted expelled BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar of culpable homicide not amounting to murder in the death of the Unnao rape victim's father.

District judge Dharmesh Sharma said Sengar had no intention of killing the victim's father. “He was beaten in a brutal manner that led to his death,” the judge said.

The court had sent Sengar to jail on December 20 for the “remainder of his natural biological life” for raping the woman in 2017, when she was a minor.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had examined 55 witnesses in support of the case and the defence examined nine witnesses.

The court had recorded the statements of the rape survivor's uncle, mother, sister and one of her father's colleague who claimed to be an eyewitness to the incident.

Charges were framed against Sengar, his brother Atul, Bhadauria, sub-inspector Kamta Prasad, constable Amir Khan and six others in the case.

The case was transferred to Delhi from a trial court in Uttar Pradesh on the directions of the Supreme Court on August 1 last year.

In July, 2019 a truck rammed into the car the rape victim was travelling in with some family members and her lawyer.

Two of her aunts died in the incident. She was airlifted from a hospital in Lucknow and to AIIMS in Delhi.

The victim has been provided accommodation in Delhi and is under CRPF protection.