Namaz should be offered in mosques, not on roads: Haryana CM on Gurugram incident

Agencies
May 6, 2018

May 6: Haryana Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar has said that Namaz should be read in mosques and Idgahs and not in public spaces. Responding to questions on increase in number of incidents of disrupting Namaz in Gurgaon, Khattar said that it was the duty of the state to maintain law and order.

“It is our duty to maintain law and order. There has been an increase in offering Namaz in open. Namaz should be read in Mosques or Idgahs rather than public spaces,” said Khattar.

The statement by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader came just days after some right-wing organisations disrupted Friday Namaz at several places in Gurugram in Haryana. However, police presence at the spots prevented any violence from taking place.

Hindutva organisations have been trying to stop Friday prayers in Gurgaon over the last two weeks alleging that some people were trying to grab land in a bid to merge it with a mosque. There were disruptions to namaz at Wazirabad, Atul Kataria Chowk, Cyber Park, Bakhtawar Chowk and at South City, on Friday last.

Members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Bajrang Dal, Hindu Kranti Dal, Gau Rakshak Dal and Shiv Sena arrived at the spots where people had assembled to offer Friday prayers.

Ritu Raj, a member of a Hindutva organisation, claimed that they organised a havan at Wazirabad to stop the Namaz.

They allegedly shouted slogans like Jai Shri Ram and Radhe Radhe to disrupt the Namaz.

Comments

angle of Life
 - 
Sunday, 6 May 2018

Allah, shiva, crist etc all name for one GOD...when any human being want to worship, love god why some people object..offering namaz will harm any one in that ground..this is really very bad in india..i think these people are born to devil so they act againts the GOD...you can love GOD any where and any place with action but without harming any human being...GOD save them from hell fire

Imran
 - 
Sunday, 6 May 2018

Agreed Mr. CM, Namaz Should be offered in mosques, not on roads. So built as much as mosques in Haryana states so that Muslims brothers will not pray on roads.

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 1,2020

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.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 25,2020

New Delhi, Mar 25: The total number of positive coronavirus cases in India have climbed to 606, said Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on Wednesday.
The total number of active COVID-19 cases in the country so far stands at 553, while the number of people who have been cured or discharged stands at 42.
Ten people have died from the disease while one case has migrated, the Ministry further informed.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Tuesday announced a 21-day lockdown in the entire country to deal with the spread of coronavirus, saying that "social distancing" is the only option to deal with the disease, which spreads rapidly.
In a televised address to the nation, Prime Minister Modi said that it is vital to break the chain of the disease and experts have said that at least 21 days are needed for it.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
July 16,2020

New Delhi, Jul 16: The Rajasthan High Court will hear Thursday afternoon a petition filed on behalf of the Sachin Pilot camp, challenging a move to disqualify dissident MLAs from the state assembly.

The plea against the disqualification notices sent from the Speaker’s office to Pilot and 18 other Congress MLAs will be heard by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

The 19 MLAs were sent notices Tuesday by the Speaker after the Congress complained that the MLAs had defied a party whip to attend two Congress Legislature Party meetings. 

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.