Latest news with #UnionMinistryofHomeAffairs
Scroll.in
9 hours ago
- Politics
- Scroll.in
A Jammu family's fight to get their mother back from Pakistan
Two months after her mother was deported from India, Falak Zahoor is disconsolate. 'If she had died, I would be at peace,' said Zahoor, a 32-year-old lawyer and Jammu resident. '[I would think] she has gone to another world and is with the Almighty. We would not be going through this hell.' Zahoor's 62-year-old mother, Rakshanda Rashid, was deported to Pakistan from India's Attari border in Punjab on April 29, barely a week after the Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir killed 26 people. Rashid has since been living alone in Lahore at a paying guest facility. A Pakistani national, Rashid had married a man from the Jammu region in December 1989 and had been living in Jammu and Kashmir since then. She had a long-term visa, one of the categories exempt from the post-Pahalgam wave of deportations, which she had been renewing annually for three decades. At the time of Rashid's expulsion, her visa renewal application had been pending with the Union Ministry of Home Affairs for more than three months. 'What is our fault?' asked Zahoor. 'As per procedure, we had applied for the extension of LTV [long-term visa] before its expiry. The government was sitting on our application for three months without either accepting or rejecting it.' The day after Rashid was deported, her family filed a writ petition before the High court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Nearly a month later, on June 6, a single-judge bench of the High Court ruled in Rashid's favour, directing the Ministry of Home Affairs to bring her back within 10 days and reunite her with her family in Jammu. But the Centre on June 29 challenged the repatriation order before a double bench, which issued an interim stay on July 2. In response to the fact that Rashid had applied for extension of her long-term visa on January 4, the ministry said that her application 'was not approved by the competent authority'. Scroll has a copy of the documents. Going by that logic, said Zahoor, her mother had been living in Jammu 'illegally' since January 16. 'Why didn't they deport her earlier then?' The bench asked the Ministry of Home Affairs to submit a response by July 17, the next date of hearing. With Rashid's case now caught in a legal tangle, her family has been worrying about how long she will be able to live alone in Lahore. 'She has already suffered a paralysis attack in the past. Her eyesight is weak and she uses contact lenses,' said Zahoor. 'How can such an individual survive alone?' Deportation and then a court order Ever since she got married, the only family Rashid knew was her husband and her two children. Both her parents in Pakistan died in 1989. When she moved to India after her marriage, Rashid lost touch with her family in Pakistan. According to the Ministry of Home Affairs, a long-term visa is granted to Pakistani and Bangladeshi women who are married to Indian nationals and have arrived in India on valid travel documents with an intent to acquire Indian citizenship. 'My mother's long-term visa had expired on January 16 and like every year, we had applied for its extension nearly two weeks before it did,' said Zahoor. She said it usually takes 40-60 days for the government to issue an extension. But this time, the government had taken more than three months to process the application. When the Pahalgam attack took place, Rashid's application was still under process. Those exempt from expulsion were people with long-term visas and those on medical, diplomatic and official visas. However, on April 28, Rashid received a 'leave India notice' from the local police in Jammu. With nobody ready to listen to their pleas, Rashid's family complied with the government's directions and she was deported on April 29. When the family went to court the next day, the bench took up the plea on the argument that the home ministry's orders had clearly exempted those with long-term visas and diplomatic visas, said Ankur Sharma, the legal counsel for Rashid's family in Jammu. Rashid, according to Sharma, had applied for Indian citizenship in 1996. 'She even has No Objection Certificates from authorities that say they don't have any objections if she becomes an Indian citizen,' he added. Sharma added that it is normal for long-term visa applications to take time to be processed. 'In case there's a delay in processing the extension application on time, it's considered granted unless it's formally rejected by the authorities,' he said. In Rashid's case, Zahoor said that the Foreigners Registration Office, under the Ministry of Home Affairs, said the visa extension process was still underway. 'In fact, I got an email on April 26 from the authorities that the application is under process.' Not only that, on May 9 – more than 10 days after her mother had been deported to Pakistan – Zahoor got an official intimation from the Foreigners Registration Office about her mother's long-term visa application being forwarded to the higher authorities. While ordering the home ministry to repatriate Rashid, the single judge bench of Justice Rahul Bharti had said that Rashid was deported ' without a proper, reasoned order '. 'Human rights are the most sacrosanct component of a human life,' the bench said, ...there are occasions when a constitutional court is supposed to come up with SOS like indulgence notwithstanding the merits and demerits of a case which can be adjudicated only upon in due course of time.' When she was deported, Rashid's family gave her Rs 50,000 –the maximum currency allowed to be taken to the other side of the border. Without an expensive roaming connection, Rashid's phone is not able to make or receive calls. 'We only talk to her when she's able to find a Wi-Fi connection,' said Zahoor. 'She's all alone,' said Zahoor. 'Whatever distant relatives we have there, they live in Rawalpindi and we don't share a good equation with them.' 'No visa', claims MHA The home ministry, in its appeal against the June 6 order, alleged that the High Court failed to appreciate the 'national security considerations' and apprehension posed by Pakistani nationals in India due to the 'war-like situation' between the two countries. The home ministry said that the High Court's order to repatriate Rashid was 'constitutionally impermissible and unsustainable' since it meant extending the judicial writ beyond India to Pakistan. 'There exists no extradition treaty, legal instrument, or international obligation binding Pakistan to return her to India,' the ministry said. 'The Indian government cannot, under existing international law, compel a sovereign nation to surrender a non-citizen.' The ministry also told the court that being married to an Indian national did not grant Rashid to 'claim a right to reside in India'. 'It is well settled law that a foreign national does not acquire Indian nationality or legal residency rights solely by virtue of marriage,' said the ministry's submission. In its appeal, the home ministry has also said that the High Court order could 'establish a dangerous precedent' since it could be used by foreign nationals for 'personal repatriation'. But the home ministry, soon after the Pahalgam terror attack, had on its own exempted the deportation of Pakistani Hindus whose long-term visa applications were 'under process.' Not only that, the exemption was also granted to Pakistani Hindus in India who had not applied for long-term visa status, provided they apply for it immediately. No such exemption, however, was granted to Rashid – a Muslim by faith. 'Isn't that discriminatory?' asked Zahoor. 'If women from Hindu and Sikh community are exempted, why not my mother?'
New Indian Express
2 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
MHA asks states, UTs to take counter-radicalisation measures in prisons
NEW DELHI: The Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has written to all states and Union Territories (UTs), raising concerns over the growing threat of radicalisation in prisons and urging countermeasures, warning that it could turn into a serious threat to public order and internal security. In its communication, a copy of which is with The New Indian Express, the MHA also outlined a set of guidelines to initiate countermeasures, as they included screening inmates, conducting regular risk assessments, isolating high-risk individuals under enhanced surveillance, and initiating de-radicalisation programmes for such prisoners. 'Prisoners can often become vulnerable to radical narratives owing to feelings of alienation, a tendency towards violent behaviour, or anti-social attitudes, and in some cases, radicalised inmates may engage in acts of violence or orchestrate attacks against prison staff, fellow inmates, or even external targets,' the MHA said, adding that radicalisation in prisons is becoming an increasingly critical challenge in the global context too and is often found to be a precursor to several criminal activities. 'It has, therefore, been felt that there is an urgent need to check and counter radicalisation of vulnerable individuals in prison settings and to undertake an exercise for de-radicalisation of such individuals, as the same is considered crucial for preserving public order and ensuring internal security,' it said.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 days ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
Centre opposes Kerala's stand in SC to withdraw case against Governor
Senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for the Kerala govt, sought to withdraw the plea saying that the issue had become infructuous in view of the recent judgment passed in the TN Governor case Press Trust of India New Delhi The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned to July 25 the pleas of the Kerala government against Governor over the delay in approving bills passed by the state assembly. A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar deferred the matter after attorney general R Venkataramani sought time. Senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for the Kerala government, sought to withdraw the plea saying that the issue had become infructuous in view of the recent judgment passed in the Tamil Nadu Governor case. Venkataramani and solicitor general Tushar Mehta opposed the submission and urged the court to await the top court's decision on the reference of President under Article 143 of the Constitution over the grant of assent to bills. Mehta said the Kerala government's petition could also be referred to be tagged along with the presidential reference. Calling it strange , Venugopal asked how could his plea be opposed. "Why my lords are hesitant for the state to withdraw the petition? There has to be some only means both parties will charge money," he said. The bench then remarked, "We will make it very clear, tentatively there can't be an objection to withdraw." The matter was then posted on July 25. On April 22, the top court said it would examine whether the recent judgement on a plea of Tamil Nadu, fixing timelines for the grant of assent to bills, covered the issues raised by the Kerala government in its pleas. Acting on a plea of Tamil Nadu government, an apex court bench on April 8 set aside the reservation of the 10 bills for President's consideration in the second round holding it as illegal, erroneous in law. The bench, for the first time, also prescribed a time limit for President to decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by Governor. It set a three-month timeframe from the date on which such reference was received. Kerala sought similar directions in its petition. In 2023, the top court expressed displeasure over then Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan "sitting" for two years on bills passed by the state legislature. Khan is currently Governor of Bihar. The top court, on July 26, last year, agreed to consider the plea of opposition-ruled Kerala alleging the denial of assent to bills passed by the legislative assembly. The Kerala government alleged that Khan referred certain bills to President Droupadi Murmu and those were yet to be cleared. Taking note of the pleas, the top court issued notices to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the secretaries of Kerala Governor. The state said its plea related to the acts of Governor in reserving seven bills, which he was required to deal with himself, to the President. Not one of the seven bills had anything to do with Centre-state relations, it argued. The bills were pending with the Governor for as long as two years and his action "subverted" the functioning of the state legislature, rendering its very existence "ineffective and otiose", the state added. "The bills include public interest bills that are for the public good, and even these have been rendered ineffective by the Governor not dealing with each one of them 'as soon as possible', as required by the proviso to Article 200," the plea said. The state government had said the home ministry informed it that President had withheld assent to four of the seven bills -- University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021; Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022; University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022; and University Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2022. The Constitution is silent on how much time the President can take in granting assent to a bill passed by a state legislature and referred to the Rashtrapati Bhavan for presidential consideration or for denying consent. Article 361 of the Constitution says the President, or Governor of a state, shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Delay in assent to bills: Centre opposes Kerala's stand to withdraw plea against Guv in SC
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned to July 25 the pleas of the Kerala government against Governor over the delay in approving bills passed by the state assembly.A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar deferred the matter after attorney general R Venkataramani sought advocate K K Venugopal , appearing for the Kerala government, sought to withdraw the plea saying that the issue had become infructuous in view of the recent judgment passed in the Tamil Nadu Governor and solicitor general Tushar Mehta opposed the submission and urged the court to await the top court's decision on the reference of President under Article 143 of the Constitution over the grant of assent to bills Mehta said the Kerala government's petition could also be referred to be tagged along with the presidential it strange , Venugopal asked how could his plea be opposed."Why my lords are hesitant for the state to withdraw the petition? There has to be some only means both parties will charge money," he bench then remarked, "We will make it very clear, tentatively there can't be an objection to withdraw."The matter was then posted on July April 22, the top court said it would examine whether the recent judgement on a plea of Tamil Nadu, fixing timelines for the grant of assent to bills, covered the issues raised by the Kerala government in its on a plea of Tamil Nadu government, an apex court bench on April 8 set aside the reservation of the 10 bills for President's consideration in the second round holding it as illegal, erroneous in bench, for the first time, also prescribed a time limit for President to decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by Governor. It set a three-month timeframe from the date on which such reference was sought similar directions in its 2023, the top court expressed displeasure over then Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan "sitting" for two years on bills passed by the state is currently Governor of top court, on July 26, last year, agreed to consider the plea of opposition-ruled Kerala alleging the denial of assent to bills passed by the legislative assembly The Kerala government alleged that Khan referred certain bills to President Droupadi Murmu and those were yet to be note of the pleas, the top court issued notices to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the secretaries of Kerala state said its plea related to the acts of Governor in reserving seven bills, which he was required to deal with himself, to the one of the seven bills had anything to do with Centre-state relations, it bills were pending with the Governor for as long as two years and his action "subverted" the functioning of the state legislature, rendering its very existence "ineffective and otiose", the state added."The bills include public interest bills that are for the public good, and even these have been rendered ineffective by the Governor not dealing with each one of them 'as soon as possible', as required by the proviso to Article 200," the plea state government had said the home ministry informed it that President had withheld assent to four of the seven bills -- University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021; Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022; University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022; and University Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, Constitution is silent on how much time the President can take in granting assent to a bill passed by a state legislature and referred to the Rashtrapati Bhavan for presidential consideration or for denying 361 of the Constitution says the President, or Governor of a state, shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties.
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Delay in assent to bills: Centre opposes in SC Kerala's stand to withdraw plea against Guv
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned to July 25 the pleas of the Kerala government against Governor over the delay in approving bills passed by the state assembly. Delay in assent to bills: Centre opposes in SC Kerala's stand to withdraw plea against Guv A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar deferred the matter after attorney general R Venkataramani sought time. Senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for the Kerala government, sought to withdraw the plea saying that the issue had become infructuous in view of the recent judgment passed in the Tamil Nadu Governor case. Venkataramani and solicitor general Tushar Mehta opposed the submission and urged the court to await the top court's decision on the reference of President under Article 143 of the Constitution over the grant of assent to bills. Mehta said the Kerala government's petition could also be referred to be tagged along with the presidential reference. Calling it strange , Venugopal asked how could his plea be opposed. "Why my lords are hesitant for the state to withdraw the petition? There has to be some only means both parties will charge money," he said. The bench then remarked, "We will make it very clear, tentatively there can't be an objection to withdraw." The matter was then posted on July 25. On April 22, the top court said it would examine whether the recent judgement on a plea of Tamil Nadu, fixing timelines for the grant of assent to bills, covered the issues raised by the Kerala government in its pleas. Acting on a plea of Tamil Nadu government, an apex court bench on April 8 set aside the reservation of the 10 bills for President's consideration in the second round holding it as illegal, erroneous in law. The bench, for the first time, also prescribed a time limit for President to decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by Governor. It set a three-month timeframe from the date on which such reference was received. Kerala sought similar directions in its petition. In 2023, the top court expressed displeasure over then Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan "sitting" for two years on bills passed by the state legislature. Khan is currently Governor of Bihar. The top court, on July 26, last year, agreed to consider the plea of opposition-ruled Kerala alleging the denial of assent to bills passed by the legislative assembly. The Kerala government alleged that Khan referred certain bills to President Droupadi Murmu and those were yet to be cleared. Taking note of the pleas, the top court issued notices to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the secretaries of Kerala Governor. The state said its plea related to the acts of Governor in reserving seven bills, which he was required to deal with himself, to the President. Not one of the seven bills had anything to do with Centre-state relations, it argued. The bills were pending with the Governor for as long as two years and his action "subverted" the functioning of the state legislature, rendering its very existence "ineffective and otiose", the state added. "The bills include public interest bills that are for the public good, and even these have been rendered ineffective by the Governor not dealing with each one of them 'as soon as possible', as required by the proviso to Article 200," the plea said. The state government had said the home ministry informed it that President had withheld assent to four of the seven bills University Laws Bill, 2021; Kerala Co-operative Societies Bill, 2022; University Laws Bill, 2022; and University Laws Bill, 2022. The Constitution is silent on how much time the President can take in granting assent to a bill passed by a state legislature and referred to the Rashtrapati Bhavan for presidential consideration or for denying consent. Article 361 of the Constitution says the President, or Governor of a state, shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
