An Open Letter to Mamata Banerjee from the student she branded a 'Maoist'

London, May 11: Fugitive diamond merchant Nirav Modi's five-day extradition trial over the nearly USD2 billion Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud and money laundering case is set to begin in London's Westminster Magistrates' Court today.

The London High Court rejected Nirav Modi's bail plea in Punjab National Bank (PNB) bank fraud case for the fifth time in early March.

Modi, the prime accused in the PNB fraud case, is currently lodged at Wandsworth prison in south-west London and is wanted for his alleged role in the Rs 13,570 crore loss caused to the Punjab National Bank (PNB) along with his uncle, Mehul Choksi.

Modi, 48, was arrested in March last year by Scotland Yard in connection with the case.

Modi was remanded in custody till February 27, 2020, after he appeared before a UK court on Thursday via video link from his London prison.

The latest bail hearing followed further assurances by Modi, including an increase in the amount of security he had offered as a guarantee as well as stricter bail conditions.

On his last bail application, Modi offered USD 4 million as a security guarantee in return for bail, an offer that was rejected by judges who ruled that there was a real risk that Modi would flee the UK to a country which has no extradition treaty with India.

At the same hearing, the judge ruled that there was "strong evidence" that Modi had engaged in "witness intimidation" and destroying evidence.

Given the seriousness of such allegations, it was all but certain that the latest bail application would be rejected.

Modi's lawyers had contended that their client was being held in difficult conditions at Wandsworth prison and had also claimed that his mental health was deteriorating as a result of his incarceration.

However, ruling at the High Court today, Justice Ian Dove said there was a "clear need for this application to be refused in the present circumstances."

It comes just days after the second sale of assets belonging to Modi valued at millions of dollars.

The items include a luxury Rolls Royce car, a Patek Philippe watch and a painting by the renowned Indian artist Amrita Sher-Gil valued at USD 2.5 million but expected to fetch considerably more.

Meanwhile, Nirav's brother Neeshal Modi, who is also one of the co-conspirators in the PNB scam, has written to Enforcement Directorate, distancing himself from his brother's actions and said that he had no knowledge of it.

New Delhi, Jul 19: Amid the political firestorm in Rajasthan following Sachin Pilot's rebellion, senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal on Sunday called for amending the anti-defection law to ban all defectors from holding public office for five years and fighting the next election.

Sibal also said that the "antibodies" against the "virus of corrupt means" to topple elected governments lie in amending the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution (anti-defection law).

His attack comes in the wake of Pilot's open rebellion against the Ashok Gehlot government, which has been on shaky ground since, with at least 18 legislators backing the rebel leader.

Pilot was sacked as deputy chief minister and the state Congress chief earlier this week.

The Congress has accused the BJP of making efforts to topple the Gehlot government by indulging in horse-trading.

"Need for Vaccine: Virus of 'corrupt means' to topple elected governments has spread through a 'Wuhan like facility' in Delhi," Sibal tweeted, in an apparent swipe at the BJP.

"Its 'antibodies' lie in amending the Tenth Schedule. Ban all defectors from: Holding public office for five years, fighting the next election," he said.

Taking a swipe at Pilot over his claim that he is not joining the BJP, Sibal on Thursday had asked what happens to his "ghar wapsi" and whether Rajasthan's dissident legislators are vacationing in Haryana under the "watchful eye" of the saffron party.

In the house of 200, the Congress has 107 MLAs, including the 19 dissidents who have been issued notices of disqualification by the speaker and they have challenged them in the high court.

The Congress has maintained the claim that the Gehlot government has the support of 109 MLAs, including the two BTP MLAs.

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.