Modi wave shocks Congress in Jammu

New Delhi, Jun 2: Manu Sharma, a convict in the 1999 Jessica Lal murder case, was released from Tihar Jail yesterday on the grounds of good behaviour after serving more than 16 years in prison, jail officials said on Tuesday.

Sharma had received the approval of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi for his release after a recommendation of the Sentence Review Board for the same.

Advocate Amit Sahni, while speaking to ANI, had said that Delhi Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal had approved the name of Siddharth Vashishth also known as Manu Sharma for release from Tihar Jail.

He said that Sharma's name was approved in a sentence review board meeting held on May 11. Earlier, Delhi High Court had also asked the SRB to consider his name for release.

Sharma, the son of former Congress leader Venod Sharma, was convicted for shooting and murdering Jessica Lal, when she refused to serve him liquor at Tamarind Court restaurant at Qutub Colonnade in south Delhi's Mehrauli on April 29, 1999.

Vashishth, 45-years-old, was serving a life term in connection with a case registered under Section 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of the offense or giving false information to screen offender) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

According to officials, the convict has undergone imprisonment for 16 years, 11 months and 24 days in actual, and 23 years 4 months and 22 days with remission. He has availed parole 12 times and furlough 24 times.

Earlier, Manu's wife -- Preity Sharma -- had approached the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) claiming that her husband had been illegally detained for more than the prescribed period of incarceration (20 years with remission) as per the prevalent policy of the state.

New Delhi, Mar 11: A doctor in Kerala on Tuesday alleged that she was sacked by the management of the private clinic she was working with for informing authorities about a non-resident Indian (NRI) patient who reportedly declined to undergo the mandatory check for coronavirus.

Dr Shinu Syamalan said the patient had come to the clinic recently with suspected symptoms of the virus.

"When he was asked whether he had visited any foreign countries, he said he was coming from Qatar. But he had not reported to the Health department about his foreign trip," she said.

When he was directed to inform about his foreign travel to the state Health Department, which has been monitoring people coming from abroad for the virus, he refused and said he was going back to Qatar, she told reporters.

Concerned over the health of the person who had high fever, Ms Syamalan informed health and police authorities.

"Officials who let the patient go abroad do not have any problem, but I have become jobless," she posted on social media.

She alleged she was sacked by the management of the clinic for reporting the matter to police and informing the public about the incident through social media and through television.

"The argument of the management is that no one would turn up for treatment in the clinic if they come to know that it was visited by patients with suspected symptoms of Coronavirus," she said.

There was no immediate reaction from the management of the private health clinic.

Official sources said the District Medical Officer (DMO) at Thrissur has complained to the collector against Shinu Syamalan accusing her of defaming health officials.

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.