ISSUE 2:THAT NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS IS VIOLATIVE

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the NRC is unconstitutional as it is
inconsistent with Part III of the Constitution. It infringes Article 14 and Article 21 enshrined
in Part III of the Constitution. Article 13(2) states “The State shall not make any law which
takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of
this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void”. 1 Therefore, as per Article 13(2)
of the Constitution, NRC is void and liable to be struck down.

2.1 THAT NRC VIOLATES ARTICLE 14

It is humbly submitted that the right to equality under the law as per Article 14 of the
constitution of Zeddlin has been violated. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in state action and
ensures fairness and equality of treatment.2 The principle of classification under Article 14
has been the subject of deliberation in various cases.

2.1.1 THAT THERE IS AN UNREASONABLE CLASSIFICATION

Article 14 is based on the rule of law and equality before law. 3 It is humbly submitted that the
right to equality is a basic feature of the Constitution, 4and the Parliament cannot transgress
the principle of equality.5 Art 14 says that there must be a reasonable classification between
groups of people and that should have a nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
6
Therefore, no action of the State should be of an arbitrary and irrational nature which
distinguishes among individuals.7

The differentia adopted as a basis of classification must have a rational or reasonable nexus
with the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.8

2.1.1.1 THAT THE CLASSIFICATION IS NOT BASED UPON INTELLIGIBLE

DIFFERENTIA

It is humbly submitted that NRC creates a classification which is unreasonable and fails to
satisfy the doctrine of reasonable classification. It should not be arbitrary, artificial or

1
Article 13(2) The Constitution of India, 1950
2
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248
3
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212
4
M.G. Badappanavar v. State of Karnataka, (2001) 2 SCC 666.
5
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225
6
State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196
7
Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386 
8
Laxmi Khandsari v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 873
evasive. It should be based on an intelligible differentia, some real and substantial distinction,
which distinguishes persons or things grouped together in the class from others left out of it.9

Differentia which is the basis of classification must be sound and must have reasonable
relation to the object of the legislation. If the object or the classification itself is
discriminatory, then an explanation that the classification is reasonable having a rational
relation to the object sought to be achieved is immaterial.10

In the instant case, NRC violates Article 14 since it is the clear instance that there is no
reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. The NRC will force every individual to
prove their citizenship to a government official. The classification done must be founded on a
intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from
others left out of the group.11All of this is done without a credible information. Thus exercise
is a clear instance of state action that is manifestly arbitrary.

2.1.2 THAT THE ORDER IS ARBITRARY IN NATURE

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that Article 14 forbids class legislation, it
does not forbid reasonable classification of persons, objects and transactions by legislature
for purpose of achieving specific ends. The classification must not be arbitrary, artificial or
evasive. When there is no reasonable basis for classification, such classification may be
declared discriminatory.12

The same is in violation of Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
The provision under the article declares that “everyone has the right to a nationality” and that
“no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his
nationality.”13 Also, Article 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
1966 protects aliens who are lawfully present in a country from arbitrary expulsion.14

In Maneka Gandhi v. U.O.I.15 , it was held that the actions of State have to be examined on
the verge of Article 14 of the Constitution. The ambit of Article 14 has been broadened and

9
MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law 910, (8th ed. 2018)
10
Subramanian Swamy v. CBI, (2014) 8 SCCC 682
11
Supra note at 9
12
S Seshachalam v. Bar Council of TN, (2014) 16 SCC 72
13
Article 15 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
14
Article 13, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966
15
Maneka Gandhi v. U.O.I., (1978) 1 SCC 248.
the criteria to determine the arbitrariness of the executive have been laid down in EP
Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu16 , that, when an act is arbitrary, it is implicit that it is
neither according to political logic nor constitutional law and hence in the violation of Article
14.17

The test of arbitrariness has been laid down in the case of Natural Resources Allocation, In
re, Special Reference No. 1 of 201218, where it is said that, an action should be fair,
reasonable, non- discriminatory, transparent, non-capricious, unbiased, without favoritism or
nepotism, in pursuit of equitable treatment and healthy competition then only it can pass the
test of arbitrariness.
In the instant case the same is in violation of Articles 14 of the Constitution since it gives the
State arbitrary powers to exercise in relation to declaring a resident as citizen/non-citizen
without prescribing for a fixed procedure, through the appointment of non-judicial members.
In the present case, Section 2(3) of the order defines detentions centre as the “2396 Prisons
located 409 Districts of Zedillin where the DFNX will be detained till they are deported”. By
the virtue of this order, all the immigrants are detained in the prisons of Zedellin.
The detainees face indefinite detention in overcrowded prisons where there is no segregation
of detainees from convicts and under trial prisoners. This is prima facie unfair act of the
government to keep the detainees with the convicted criminals.
The detention of any person, to be reasonable, should be proportionate to the legitimate aim
behind that detention. In the present case, the detention of the immigrants in the prisons, with
the convicted offenders, with the legitimate aim of deporting them back to Tescobar, is
unreasonable.
The order, under section 3(3), restricts the immigrants to do non-punitive labour and earn
money. The objective of the order was to detain the immigrants till the time they are not
deported back to Tescobar. There is no reasonable nexus between the object and the
restriction under section 3(3).
Therefore, the Foreigners Order, 2013, on the basis of which the entire exercise of NRC,
detention, and deportation of the Foreign Nationals is taking place, is arbitrary in nature.
It was held in the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. U.O.I.19 and Joseph Shine v. U.O.I.20 that

16
EP Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3.
17
Id.
18
Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1.
19

20
an Act can be struck down on the ground of arbitrariness.

3. FOREIGNER’S TRIBUNALS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Foreigner’s Tribunals were established under the Foreigner’s Act 1946, which is a pre
constitutional legislation, meant to deal with foreigners rather than citizens. The Constitution
of India was amended in 1976 and included in it the provisions 323A and 323B.

Article 323A which mentions for the Administrative tribunals for adjudication or trial of
disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions for services and posts in
connection with the affairs of the union or State or any local authority. 21 Article 323B
provides the 9 grounds on which any tribunal may be created which includes tax, import and
export, industrial dispute, elections to either of the houses of parliament, production and
procurement of essential goods.22

However, constitution does not provide any tribunal which pronounces on the citizenship of
the people. Foreigner’s Tribunal is not being backed by the constitution in order to pronounce
the citizenship of any person.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Zedellin that Foreigner’s
Tribunal not being provided under the Indian Constitution is not in consonance with the same
and hence unconstitutional.

21
Article 323A, The Constitution Of India, 1950.
22
Article 323B,The Constitution Of India, 1950.