US treatment of Indian diplomat ‘deplorable’: PM

New Delhi, Feb 5: Kapil Baisala who opened fired at the Shaheen Bagh protest site last week is a member of the Aam Aadmi Party, police said on Tuesday, sparking a war of words between the BJP and the AAP.

While the BJP accused Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal of "playing" with the security of the country, the AAP hit back, stating the saffron party was indulging "dirty politics".

Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime Branch) Rajesh Deo said that Baisala and his father joined the AAP in early 2019.

Baisala's family, however, refuted the police's claim.

Kapil Baisala's uncle Fatesh Singh told PTI, "I have no idea where these photographs are circulating from. My nephew Kapil had no association with any political party nor does any other member from the family. My brother, Gaje Singh, (Baisala's father) fought assembly elections in 2008 on a Bahujan Samaj Party ticket and lost. After that no one from our family had any links with any political party."

Singh added that Baisala also doesn't have friends associated with the AAP or any other political party.

Gaje had also contested the 2012 civic body polls from the BSP, the police said.

The police officer said they seized Baisala's mobile phone and retrieved WhatsApp data.

On Saturday, Baisala fired two rounds in air at Shaheen Bagh. According to eyewitnesses, the man shouted "Hindu Rashtra Zindabad" and fired two rounds.

He was overpowered by the police and later arrested.

In the pictures, it was seen that he and his father joined the party in the presence of Atishi Marlena, Sanjay Singh and other leaders, sources said.

The police said on Thursday, Baisala, along with his friend Sarthak Larolla, went to Shaheen Bagh from his village on a bike.

Through CCTV footage, it was found they took the DND flyover, Maharani Bagh, Sarai Jullena and reached Holy Family hospital, a senior police officer said.

"Baisala was not comfortable on the bike as he had hidden the pistol near his waist. They entered the hospital's parking where he adjusted the pistol, used the washroom and headed towards Shaheen Bagh," the senior official added.

When they reached the protest site, Larolla left the spot with the motorcycle and Baisala's mobile phone. Later, Baisala fired two rounds in the air and was apprehended. The weapon was recovered from near the spot, the police said.

Larolla joined the investigation and the mobile phone was seized from his residence.

Baisala has been remanded to police remand for two days.

He had bought the pistol around seven years ago for his brother's marriage. The source of the weapon from where he procured it is yet to identified, police said.

The sources said Baisala was previously also involved in firing incident but was never caught nor was a case registered against him.

Hitting out at the AAP, BJP president J P Nadda accused Kejriwal of playing with the security of the country and said that the people will give the party a befitting reply.

"I want to make clear to Kejriwal that this country is bigger than any election, any government, and the country will not forgive those who play with its security. The people of Delhi will give a befitting reply," Nadda tweeted.

Senior AAP leader Sanjay Singh asked on whose directions was the Delhi Police accusing his party.

"Before the police revealed it (Baisala being an AAP member), how did BJP's Delhi president Manoj Tiwari come to know about it," Singh asked and accused the police of maligning the party.

Bhopal, Jul 25: Madhya Pradesh chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan said on Saturday he has tested positive for the coronavirus disease (Covid-19).

Chouhan made the announcement in a series of tweets.

“My dear countrymen, I had symptoms of COVID-19 and after the test, my report has come back positive. I appeal to all my colleagues that whoever came in contact with me, must get their corona test done. And my close contacts should quarantine themselves,” Chouhan said in a tweet in Hindi.

“If COVID19 is treated on time, a person is completely cured. I have been reviewing the status of corona infection every evening since March 25. I will try to review corona situation through video conferencing as much as possible now,” he added.

The chief minister said the review meeting will now be held by home minister Narottam Mishra, urban development and administration minister Bhuppendra Singh, health education minister Vishvas Sarang and health minister Dr Prabhuram Choudhary in his absence.

“I will also continue to do everything possible to help control COVID19 in the state during treatment,” he said.

One of Chouhan’s ministerial colleagues tested positive for Covid-19 late on July 22.

The chief minister along with the minister, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s state unit president VD Sharma and state unit general secretary (organisation) Suhas Bhagat had visited Lucknow in a government plane on July 21 to attend the funeral of MP governor Lalji Tandon who died away in the Uttar Pradesh capital, his hometown. during hospitalisation.

The minister is admitted to a private medical college’s teaching hospital in Bhopal.

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.