NCW member directs action on women's grievances in Motihari
A programme was held to hear the grievances of the women at Rajendra auditorium on collectorate premises. A total of 51 applications from across East Champaran were discussed in details with DM Saurabh Jorwal and SP Swarn Prabhat.
Later, the member of NCW held a review meeting with DM and SP, SDOs, SDPOs and SHOs. Issues like women harassment, domestic violence, cybercrime, dowry harassment were discussed in the meeting.
The jail superintendent was directed to make arrangements for education of the women prisoners and their children living in the central jail of Motihari and also provide skill development training to those who have passed matriculation so that they can lead a good life post-prison.
She asked the officials to get the women jail inmates' Aadhaar card, Ayushman card and old-age pension card prepared in seven days.
She stressed that it was the responsibility of the district administration to create a safe ecosystem for women.
Motihari: Mamta Kumari, member of the National Commission for Women (NCW), after hearing the complaints of 51 women on Wednesday, directed the officials concerned to take immediate action to provide justice to them.
A programme was held to hear the grievances of the women at Rajendra auditorium on collectorate premises. A total of 51 applications from across East Champaran were discussed in details with DM Saurabh Jorwal and SP Swarn Prabhat.
Later, the member of NCW held a review meeting with DM and SP, SDOs, SDPOs and SHOs. Issues like women harassment, domestic violence, cybercrime, dowry harassment were discussed in the meeting.
The jail superintendent was directed to make arrangements for education of the women prisoners and their children living in the central jail of Motihari and also provide skill development training to those who have passed matriculation so that they can lead a good life post-prison.
She asked the officials to get the women jail inmates' Aadhaar card, Ayushman card and old-age pension card prepared in seven days.
She stressed that it was the responsibility of the district administration to create a safe ecosystem for women.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
4 hours ago
- Business Standard
Aadhaar, PAN, Voter ID not proof of citizenship: Bombay HC ruling decoded
The Bombay High Court on 12 August ruled that owning an Aadhaar card, PAN card, voter ID, or even a passport is not enough to prove you are an Indian citizen. This decision came while rejecting the bail plea of an alleged Bangladeshi man accused of illegally entering India and obtaining forged documents. The bench emphasised that under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, the burden of proving citizenship lies with the individual. The accused had claimed to be Indian but failed to produce valid citizenship documents such as a passport or a certificate issued under Indian law. The ruling reinforces that possession of commonly used identity documents does not override the legal requirement to prove nationality. What the Case Was About The man in question, Babu Abdul Ruf Sardar, was arrested on charges of: Illegal entry into India Possessing forged Indian identity documents Potential national security violations During the investigation, authorities allegedly found Bangladeshi birth certificates on his phone. While he claimed Indian citizenship and produced Aadhaar, PAN, and voter ID, the court found these insufficient as proof of nationality. Justice Amit Borkar, after reviewing the evidence, observed that citizenship claims must be tested strictly under the Citizenship Act and that the burden of proof lies with the accused when credible evidence raises doubts about nationality. 'The allegations in this case are not small. It is not just about staying in India without permission or overstaying a visa. It is about making and using fake and forged identity documents like Aadhaar card, PAN card, and Voter ID, with the aim of pretending to be an Indian citizen.' "The Bombay High Court rejected regular bail for the applicant, booked under BNS u/s 335, 336(3), 340/3(5), Passport Act u/s 3(a), 6(a) and Foreigners Order u/s 3(1), 3(2), 14, after forensic extraction from his phone disclosed Bangladeshi birth certificates (his and his mother's) and CDR/IPDR logs revealed persistent cross-border calls to Bangladesh-linked numbers. Invoking section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Court held that this credible prosecution evidence shifts the burden to the applicant to prove Indian citizenship; until such proof is furnished, mere possession of unverified Aadhaar, PAN or Voter ID cards whose authenticity is still under UIDAI scrutiny cannot establish nationality or justify release," said Rahul Sundaram, Partner, IndiaLaw LLP. What the Court Said Justice Amit Borkar, delivering the order, made three key points: Identification ≠ Citizenship Aadhaar, PAN, voter ID, and passports are meant to verify identity for services and voting, not to establish nationality. Citizenship Must Be Proven Under the Citizenship Act, 1955 To prove you are an Indian citizen, you must show eligibility through: Birth in India before a certain cut-off date Indian parentage Registration or naturalisation as per law "Under Indian law, documents like Aadhaar, PAN, or Voter ID establish identity or residence—not citizenship—and the Bombay High Court has rightly held that citizenship must be proved strictly in accordance with the Citizenship Act, 1955 and recognised legal evidence," said Athira Sajan, Associate Partner, King Stubb & Kasiva, Advocates and Attorneys. Burden of Proof Is on the Individual Under the Foreigners Act, if the state presents credible evidence that raises doubt about a person's citizenship, it is the individual's responsibility to prove they are Indian. The Laws Involved Citizenship Act, 1955 — Defines how citizenship is acquired and the documents needed to prove it. Foreigners Act, 1946 (Section 9) — Places the burden of proof on the person suspected of being a foreign national. Representation of the People Act — Governs voter ID issuance, which is not linked to a citizenship verification process as rigorous as the Citizenship Act. Why Your Aadhaar or Voter ID May Not Be Enough Aadhaar is issued based on proof of identity and residence — not nationality. PAN card is for tax purposes — foreign nationals can also obtain one. Voter ID is linked to electoral rolls — errors or fraudulent enrolment can occur. Passport requires some citizenship verification but can be obtained fraudulently. In short: These documents are valid for day-to-day identification but are not decisive proof of nationality in a court of law. Implications of the Ruling Legal Scrutiny in Citizenship Disputes If your citizenship is challenged, you'll need documentary evidence like birth certificates, parentage records, or official nationality certificates. Stricter Checks for Border Cases
New Indian Express
6 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Two bank officials among 14 held for mule account operations in Odisha
ROURKELA: Local branch manager of Bandhan Bank and an agent of IDBI Bank were among 14 persons arrested by the Rourkela police for their association with an organised crime syndicate involved in operation of mule bank accounts. The crime syndicate, based out of Rourkela, was primarily involved in procurement and operation of mule bank accounts to facilitate transfer of illegal proceeds in cyber crime and money laundering activities in India and abroad. The seizure included 30 Aadhaar and 10 PAN cards used in fake accounts, 17 passbooks of different banks, four cheque books, one laptop, 15 mobile phones and a car. Acting on a tip off, a team of the Cyber Crime & Economic Offences police station with help of local police arrested the 14 in two phases for acting as conduits for the gang, Rourkela SP Nitesh Wadhwani said.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
6 hours ago
- Business Standard
Only Aadhaar, PAN, Voter ID not sufficient proof of citizenship: Bombay HC
Rejecting the bail application of a man alleged to be a Bangladeshi national, the Bombay High Court noted that Aadhaar, PAN, and Voter ID, without verification, cannot be treated as sufficient proof of citizenship. The judgement by single-judge bench of Justice Amit Borkar said on Tuesday, "Merely relying on the existence of certain identity documents such as Aadhaar, PAN, or Voter ID, without verification of the process through which these were obtained, cannot be treated as sufficient proof of lawful citizenship at this stage, particularly when the very authenticity of such documents is under investigation." Justice Borkar mentioned that the claim of citizenship can only be examined under the rules of the Citizenship Act, 1955. "The claim of citizenship must be examined strictly under the rules of the Citizenship Act, 1955, including whether the person meets the conditions under Sections 3 to 6, or any special provisions applicable to their case," the judgement read. The prosecution alleged that the applicant is a Bangladeshi national and has forged the identity cards. During the investigation, the police found his birth certificate belonging to Bangladesh. However, the court at this stage has not decided whether the documents presented by the accused are forged or not. "During the investigation, the applicant's mobile phone was taken by the police as per law and sent for forensic examination. From the data recovered from the phone, copies of two birth certificates were found, one said to be of the applicant himself and the other of a woman claimed to be his mother. Both these documents show the place of birth as being in Bangladesh... The Court is not deciding at this stage whether the documents are true or false, that will be decided at the trial. But the fact that such documents have been found on the applicant's own phone is important and cannot be ignored," Justice Borkar said in his judgment. Rejecting the bail plea, Justice Borkar said that the accused can apply for bail if the trial is not concluded within a year. "However, it shall be open for the applicant to revive his request for bail if the trial is not concluded within a period of one year from today," the judgment read.
