Recovered corona patient tests positive for virus again

New Delhi, Feb 11: The Aam Aadmi Party on Tuesday appeared to be heading back to power for a second term in Delhi with the party leading in 52 seats of the 70 and the BJP ahead in 18 as votes for last week's assembly elections were counted, according to Election Commission figures. The contest for political power over the national capital was a bipolar one with the Congress nowhere in the reckoning, according to initial trends.

AAP supremo and chief minister Arvind Kejriwal was leading in the New Delhi seat by 4,300 seats, while his deputy Manish Sisodia from Patparganj seat was ahead by 102 votes.

BJP leader Vijender Gupta, who is also leader of opposition in the Delhi legislative assembly, was trailing by over 1,200 votes from Rohini.

As early celebrations broke out in the AAP headquarters in Rouse Avenue, BJP's Delhi unit chief Manoj Tiwari asked his party supporters not to lose hope.

"There are 27 seats where the difference of votes is between 700 to 1,000," Tiwari told reporters.

Looking ahead at victory, he said he was not nervous and was ready to take on the responsibilities that a win would bring.

"All talk is over. We have to wait for the blessings of the people. I am confident it will be a good day for BJP. We are coming to power in Delhi today. Don't be surprised if we win 55 seats," Tiwari said.

Kejriwal, who had led his party to a spectacular win of 67 of 70 seats in 2015, is expected to address party workers and the media later in the day. However, his party workers were upbeat and in celebratory mode.

"We have been saying since the beginning that the upcoming polls will be fought on the basis of work done by us... You wait and watch, we will register a massive win," AAP spokesperson Sanjay Singh told reporters.

"We hope we get such a clear majority that a message goes out that doing Hindu-Muslim politics will not work anymore," said AAP volunteer Fareen Khan at the party office.

The headquarters were decorated with blue and white balloons and big cutouts of Kejriwal were placed in different parts of the office.

Labour minister and AAP's Delhi unit convenor Gopal Rai was leading in Badarpur constituency by 1,994 votes.

Atishi, AAP's Kalkaji candidate, who was also instrumental in the transformation of Delhi government schools, was trailing by 190 votes.

AAP's Timarpur candidate Dilip Pandey was leading by over 1,500 votes.

BJP's Tajinder Singh Bagga was trailing on Hari Nagar seat by over 50 votes, while AAP's Raghav Chadha is leading from Rajinder Nagar constituency.

Congress' Chandni Chowk candidate Alka Lamba, who is sitting MLA from the constituency, was trailing by over 5,800 votes.

Counting centres are spread across 21 locations in 11 districts, including at the CWG Sports Complex in east Delhi, NSIT Dwarka in west Delhi, Meerabai Institute of Technology and G B Pant Institute of Technology in southeast Delhi, Sir CV Raman ITI, Dheerpur in central Delhi, and Rajiv Gandhi Stadium in Bawana in north Delhi.

The assembly elections were held on February 8.

A total of 672 candidates, including 593 men and 79 women, were in the fray for the hotly contested, often divisive polls with the anti-CAA protests in Shaheen Bagh occupying centrestage towards the end of the campaign.

While the AAP, of course, put forward Kejriwal, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, home minister Amit Shah and Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath were among those who extensively campaigned for the BJP.

The Congress, still recovering maybe from the death of its three-time Delhi chief minister Sheila Dikshit in July last year, got into campaign mode much later. Former prime minister Manmohan Singh and party leaders Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi were among those who campaigned for the Congress.

New Delhi, Jun 26: Congress president Sonia Gandhi on Friday said the central government cannot shirk its responsibility of securing our borders with China and asked Prime Minister Narendra Modi to take the nation into confidence on the situation in Ladakh.

In a video message put out as part of the Congress party's campaign to honour the Army personnel who sacrificed their lives in Ladakh, she asked why the country's soldiers were martyred when China has not captured any Indian territory, as claimed by the Prime Minister.

"Today when there is a crisis-like situation at the India-China border, the central government cannot shirk its responsibility (of securing them)," she said in a video message as part of 'SpeakUpForOurJawans' campaign.

"The country wants to know if China has not captured our land in Ladakh, as claimed by the Prime Minister, then why were our 20 soldiers martyred," she asked.

She said while the Prime Minister says there is no intrusion into Indian territory, experts after seeing satellite images talk of the presence of Chinese troops in our territory confirming the intrusions.

"When and how will the Modi government take back from China our land in Ladakh? Is our territorial integrity being violated by China in Ladakh? Will the Prime Minister take the nation in confidence on the situation at the border?" Gandhi asked.

She said the government should give full support and strength to the Army, saying "this will be true patriotism".

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.