Most Respectfully Showeth-

It is submitted that The Citizenship ( Amendment) Act, 2019 is unconstitutional as it destroys the
constitutionality and basic structure of the Mayeechin Constitution on the basis of following
grounds:-
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 has amended the Citizenship Act, 1955 based on religion
and nationality. The Act has introduced the following arbitrary and unreasonable amendments :-
1. The Act has changed the meaning the definition of ‘illegal migrant’ provided in the Section
2(1) (b) of the Act by adding a proviso. It creates an exception in favour of exempted
categories 1 of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan,
Bangladesh and Pakistan, thereby making them eligible for applying for Indian
citizenship.2
2. It also added a second proviso which provides for the abatement of proceedings against the
exempted minority communities before the commencement of the Act3.
3. The Act further relaxed the qualifications for the exempted minority to expedite their
naturalisation4.
The above amendment has excluded Muslims and persons of other areas who are also facing
religious persecution in their State.
It is further submitted that catena of cases has been passed by the Apex Court wherein the court
has held that certain fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution of Mayeechin are available
to noncitizens (including refugees)5 and citizens equally. On the basis of these it is submitted that
the certain fundamental rights like Article 14 and Article 21 is also guaranteed to non- citizens.

1
Passport (Entry into India) Rules , 1950 , rule 4(1)(ha) and The Foreigners Order, para.3A
2
Citizenship ( Amendment) Act, 2019, cl.2
3
Id.,cl.2, proviso. As noted by the Joint Parliamentary Committee, the purpose of this second proviso is to reconcile
the stipulations of the notification dated Sep. 7, 2015 and July 18, 2016 (issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs) with
the Assam Accord. Since the Assam Accord provides for the detection, deletion or expulsion of foreigner who entered
Assam on or after March 25, 1971, it was at odds with the three notifications mentioned earlier that had extended the
cut-off date to December 31, 2014 in respect of the persons covered by the notifications. See Report of the Joint
Committee on the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016 (Januaray 2019), para. 5.47 at 78
4
Id.,cl. 4.
5
See The Constitution of India, arts. 14,20, 21, 21A, 22, 25-28 and 32. See also State Trading Corporation of India
Ltd. Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1963 SC 1811; Anwar v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1971) 3 SCC 104; Kubric
Dariusz v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 568; Lousis De Raedt v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 554 and NHRC v.
State of Arunachal Pradesh(1996) 1 SCC 742
(i)The impugned act violated the Article 14 as this act made a arbitrary and unreasonable
classification between the persons who have illegally entered into India in two different class viz.
migrants from the there specified countries of six religions as specified in the Act and migrants
from other countries like Srilanka, Myanmar, Bhutan, Tibet and China, which does not satisfy the
twin requirement of reasonable classification as in Supra State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali
Sarkar 6 the Supreme Court held that in order to pass the ‘reasonable classification’ the following
twin requirement must be fulfilled by the enactment in question:-
(a) the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that
are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (b) the differentia must have a rational
relation to the object of classification sought to be achieved by the Act.
It is submitted on the above basis of classification of the Act that the reasoning given in the
Statement of Object and Reason by the Government is religious persecution which does not
stand the test of reasonable classification as the people of other countries like Rohingyas of
Myanmar, Balus, Ahmadiyyas, Srilanka Tamilans etc. are also persecuted in their State for
religious purpose which has been ignored by this Act. Secondly, the citizenship is given only for
religious persecution and has adopted a arbitrary approach towards others causes of persecution.
The classification is also based on an unreasonable date i.e 31.12.2014 which is arbitrary and is
against the Assam accord as well. So reasoning of religious persecution does not hold good to
satisfy the test of reasonable classification under the Article 14 as it was well settled by this
Hon’ble Court including interalia in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)7 that, the
classification under Article 14 should not be based on the basis of nationality, religion,gender, etc.
It is submitted that the clause (2) of the Act failed to provide the reasonable classification inasmuch
it does not provide a cogent explanation for privileging one class from another on ground of
religion for acquiring citizenship is against the basic value and structure of the Constitution as it
was held in the case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India(1994)8by Apex Court , “secularism is the
basic feature of the constitution.” And it was further held in the case of Keshavananda Bharti V
State of Kerela (1973)9 that “the parliament has no power to amend/ destroy/ annihilate the basic
feature of the Constitution”. Thus, referring both the cases it is submitted that the Citizenship

6 AIR 1952 SC 75
7 10 SCC 1
8 3 SCC 1
9 4 SCC 225
(Amendment) Act, 2019 is destroys the basic structure of the Constitution. Thus, it is submitted
that the impugned act has clearly violated the equality doctrine of the Constitution making it
discriminatory, arbitrary violative to basic structure making this Act unconstitutional and needs to
be strike down. It has been held by this Hon’ble Court in the case Sharma Transport v. State of
A.P. (2002)10 that, “. The tests of arbitrary action applicable to executive action do not necessarily
apply to the delegated legislation. In order to strike down a delegated legislation as arbitrary it has
to be established that there is manifest arbitrariness. In order to be described as arbitrary, it must
be shown that it was not reasonable and manifestly arbitrary. The expression “ arbitrarily” means:
in an unreasonable manner, as fixed or done capriciously or at pleasure , without adequate
determining principle, not founded in the nature of things, non-rational, not done or acting
according to reason or judgment, depending on the will alone..” In the case of Shayara Bano v.
Union of India (2017)11 this Hon’ble Court while reiterating the decision in International Airport
Authority Case [Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India,
(1979)12 held that any legislation which is arbitrary to Artice 14 can be struck down.
8. It is therefore, clear from a reading of even the aforesaid two Constitution Bench judgements
in Mithu case [Mithu v. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 277: 1983 SCC (Cri) 405] and Sunil Batra
case [ Sunil Batra v. Delhi Admn., (2978) 4 SCC 494: 1979 SCC(Cri) 155] that Article 14 has
been referred to in the context of the constitutional invalidity of statutory law to show that such
statutory law will be struck down if it is found to be“arbitrary”.In the light of above judicial
pronouncements and after going through the reasonable classification test of the impugned Act it
is submitted that this Act is unconstitutional and has no nexus between the policy and the object
of the Act and hence, needs to be struck down to protect the validity of Mayeechin Constitution.
(ii) The impugned Act is also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of Mayeechin as it takes
away the meaning right to life and liberty of other migrants who don’t belong to that respective
six religion from those three States, thereby infringing their basic right to life. There is catena of
cases wherein this Hon’ble Court has held that certain fundamental rights are not only guaranteed
to citizens but also to non-citizens. Certain human rights are basic rights which is available to
everyone irrespective of their nationality, religion, sex, colour, etc. and violation of these rights

10 2 SCC 188 ( SCC pp. 203-4, para 25)

11 9 SCC 1: 2017 SCC Online SC 963 , pp. 99
12 3 SCC 489: (1979) 3 SCR 1014, SCR at p.1042 ( SCC p. 511)
will violate the human rights. In Supra Anwar v. State of J&K (1971)13 it was held by this Apex
Court that, “the rights under Article 20, 21 and 22 are available not only to “citizens” but also to “
persons” which would include “non-citizens.”
This right is consonance with the Article 3 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights which also
has a similar meaning in the Article 21 of the Mayeechin which reads as “No person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by the law.”
It is trite law that “procedure established by law” within the meaning of Article 21 of the
Constitution necessarily implies “just, fair and reasonable 14” procedure and the impugned act
lacks this basic principle of “just, fair and reasonable” as it does not provide adequate reasonality
for differentiating the people on the basis of religion and nation. It also has failed to look upon
plight of persons of other countries who are facing religious persecution or persecution of any
other form who wants to seek shelter in other nation States to safeguard their life. This Hon’ble
Court in the case of National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and
Anr (1996)15 has held that, everyone is entitled to life and no person shall be deprived of
same.Relying on the above two cases it is submitted that the Citizenship(Amendment) Act, 2019
of Mayeechin fails to stand on the test of ‘ procedure established by law’ as the due process of law
i.e the impugned Act is not fair, just and reasonable as it takes the basic rights from people on the
basis on religion and nationality, which thus, violates the Article 21 of the Constitution.
(iii) Mayeechin is signatory to international treaties like Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights “ICCPR”, which strives to safeguard the
human rights of people. Article 2 of UDHR declares that everyone is entitled to all the rights set
out in the UDHR without distinction of any kind. Article 3 (upon which Article 21 is based)
provides that everyone have the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 7 (which is
similar to Article 14 of our Constitution) provides that all are equal before the law and are entitled
without any discrimination in violation of the UDHR and against any incitement to such
discrimination. Article 14 provides that everyone have the right to seek and enjoy in other countries
asylum from persecution. This protection does not extend to persons facing persecution for
genuinely non-political crimes or acting contrary to the principles of the UN. The legislature of

13 3 SCC 104: AIR 1971 Sc 337: (1971) 1 SCR 637

14 See Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1975 AIR 597 1978 SCR (2) 621 197
15 1 SCC 742
every nation should frame their policies and laws in conformity with international law. The Apex
Court has realized the importance of international law in The Chairman Railway Board & Ors
vs Mrs Chandrima Das & Ors (2000)16 the court observed that all the international agreements
need to be incapulated by its signatories in their domestic jurisprudence.25. Lord Diplock in
Salomon v. Commr. Of Customs and Excise[1996]17 said that there is prima facie presumption
that Parliament does not act in breach of international law, including specific treaty obligations.
So also, Lord bridge v. Secy. of State for the Home Deptt.[(1991) 1 All ER 720 (HL)] observed
that Parliament should frame legislations in consonance with international agreements.The conflict
of international law will lead to violation to Article 51 (c)18 and Art 25319 of the Constitution. The
impugned Art violated the Article 2,3,7 and 14 of UDHR and Article 26 of ICCPR thus, violating
Art 51(c) and Article 253 of our Constitution.
Thus, it is submitted that the impugned Act is unconstitutional as it is in contravention to the Article
14, 21, 51 (c) and 253 of the Constitution and destroys the basic structure of the Constitution. This
Act is arbitrary and unreasonable as it hinders the right of life of migrants of other religion and
other Nation States without giving effect to nexus between classification and object of the Act
thereby, it holds no constitutional value and hence void abinitio and liable to be so declared by this
Hon’ble Court.

16 2 SCC 465
17 3 All ER 871
18See Art 51(c),Indian Constitution: foster respect for international laws and treaty obligations in the dealings of

organized people with one another

19 Art 253 , Indian Constitution: Legislation for giving effect to international agreements.