i|Page

Table of Contents
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ iv

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................................................... vi

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................................................................................. xii

STATEMENT OF FACTS .......................................................................................................... xiii

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ......................................................................................................... xiv

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .................................................................................................. xv

Issue 1: Present PIL is maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Gondor ............... xv

Issue 2: The provisions of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2018 to the Principal Act are
discriminatory in nature and hence, ultra vires the Constitution of Gondor. ............................ xv

Issue 3: The provisions of the Passport (Entry into Gondor) Amendment Rules, 2015 & The
Foreigners (Amendment) Order, 2015 are arbitrary and not in accordance with the applicable
law and hence, ultra vires the Constitution of Gondor. ............................................................ xv

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ........................................................................................................ 1

Issue 1: Present PIL is maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Gondor ................. 1

[1.A] There is Local Standi in the present case ...................................................................... 1

[1.B.] All the essentials of PIL are being fulfilled. ................................................................. 2

[1.C] Exhaustion of alternate remedies is not a bar. ............................................................... 4

Issue 2: The provisions of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2018 to the Principal Act are
discriminatory in nature and hence, ultra vires the Constitution of Gondor. .............................. 5

[2.A] It is against the Basic structure of the Constitution of Gondor. ................................... 5

[2.B] It is a danger to the Culture and Heritage of Rivendale. ............................................... 9

Issue 3: The provisions of the Passport (Entry into Gondor) Amendment Rules, 2015 & The
Foreigners (Amendment) Order, 2015 are arbitrary and not in accordance with the applicable
law and hence, ultra vires the Constitution of Gondor. ............................................................ 10

[3.A] It is not co-extensive with the legislative power. ........................................................ 10

[3.B] It is substantive ultra vires to the applicable law. ........................................................ 12

ii | P a g e
 [3.C] There is need for legislative approval for compliance to executive order................... 13

[3.D] It is unreasonable and arbitrary in nature .................................................................... 14

[3.E] It is violative of the Rivendale Accord, 1985. ............................................................. 16

PRAYER ....................................................................................................................................... 17

iii | P a g e
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AC Appeal Cases

AIR All India Reporter

All Allahabad

All ER All England law reports

Anr. Another

Art. Article

Assn. Association

Bom Bombay

Bom LR Bombay Law Reporter

CCE Collector of Central Excise board

Co. Company

Ed. Edition

Gau LR Gauhati law Journal

H.P. Himachal Pradesh

Ltd. Limited

Mad LJ Madras law journal

Moot proposition Statement of Facts from Moot Problem

Ors Others

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

Sec. Section

UP Uttar Pradesh

VOL. Volume

iv | P a g e
v. , vs. Versus

¶ Paragraph(s)

v|Page
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Tables of cases

S.no. Case Number Citation

1) A. Sanjeevi Naidu v. State of Madras, (1970) 3 S CR 505
2) Andhra Industrial Works v Chief Controller of AIR 1974 SC 1539
Imports and Ors,
3) Aruna Roy &Ors. v. Union of India &Ors. (2002) 7 SCC 368
4) Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal (2004) 3 SCC 349

5) Assam SanmilitaMaha sangha v. Union of India (2015) 3 SCC 1

&Ors.
6) Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1979 SC 321
7) B. Singh v Union of India &Ors, (2004) 3 SCC 363

8) Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1982 SC 1325

9) BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of (2002) 2 SCC 333
India,
10) Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161

11) Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1983 SC 454

12) Bhatnagars & Co., vs. Union of India AIR 1957 SC 478
13) Bodhisattwa Gautam vs, Subhra Chakraborty (1996) 1 SCC 490
14) Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar,. MANU/SC/0047/1954
15) C. Masilamani Mudaliar v. Idol of Sri (1996) 8 SCC 525
Swaminathaswami Swaminathaswami Thirukoil
16) Chairman, Railway board v. Chandima Das AIR 2000 SC 988
17) Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1480
18) Chintaman Rao v. State of MP AIR 1951 SC 118
19) Coffee Board v. Jt. Commercial Tax Officer AIR 1971 SC 870

20) D.C. Wadhaw v. State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 378

21) Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1961 SC 1457

vi | P a g e
22) Delhi Development Authority v. Joginder S. (2004) 2 SCC 297
Monga
23) Dolly Chandra v. Chairman Jee (2005) 9 SCC 779
24) Dr. Upendra Baxi (I) v. State of Uttar Pradesh and (1983) 2 SCC 308
Anr.,
25) Edward Mills Co. v. State of Ajmer AIR 1955 SC 25
26) Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of AIR 1981 SC 844
India
27) Francis Coralie v. Administrator, Union Territory AIR 1981 SC 746
of Delhi
28) Garg RK v Union of India AIR 1981 SC 2138
29) Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee v. CK (2003) 7 SCC 546
Rajan and Ors,
30) Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. v. (1974) 4 SCC 98
Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax
31) Hanif v State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731
32) HarishankarBagla vs. State of M.P AIR 1954 SC 465
33) Haryana Development Authority v. Dropadi Devi (2005) 9 SCC 514
34) I. R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, , 2007 (2) SCC 1
35) In Re: Natural Resources Allocation (2012) 10 SCC 1 (77)

36) J. Jayalalitha v. Government of Tamil Nadu and MANU/SC/0861/1999

Ors.
37) Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Ors. (1992) 4 SCC 305

38) Jijabai v. Pathankhan AIR 1971 SC 315

39) Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v State of J &K AIR 1980 SC 1992
40) Kausha PN v Union of India AIR 1978 SC 1457
41) Kedar Nath Bajoria v State of W.B AIR 1953 SC 404
42) Keshvananda Bharati v. State of Kerala 1973 (4) SCC 225
43) Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 1295

vii | P a g e
44) Khet Singh v. Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 380
45) Kishore Samriti v. State of U.P., (2013) 2 SCC 398
46) KK Kochunni v State of Madras AIR 1959 SC 725

47) Laxminarayan R. Bhattad and Ors. v. State of (2003) 5 SCC 413

Maharashtra and Anr.
48) M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 605
49) M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1115
50) M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 649

51) M/s. BishamberDayal Chandra Mohan v. State of AIR 1982 SC 33

U.P. and Ors
52) MaganbhaiSanjanwala v. State of Bombay AIR 1961 SC 4
53) Maharashtra v. Harishchandra (1986) 3 SCC 349
54) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597
55) Mani Nariman Daruwala v. PbirozNBhatena (1991) 3 SCC 141
56) Mohammad Yasin v. Town Area Committee AIR 1952 SC 115
57) Mohan Amba Prasad Agnihotn v. BhaskarBAher, (2000) 3 SCC 190
58) Mohd.Shujat Ali v UOI AIR 1974 SC 1631
59) Motilal v. The Government of the State of Uttar MANU/UP/0312/1950
Pradesh
60) Nagendra Nath v. Commissioner of Hills DL AIR 1958 SC 398
61) Nainsuleh Das vs. State of U.P., AIR 1953 SC 384
62) Narendra Kumar And Ors v. The Union of India AIR 1960 SC 430
And Ors.
63) P. B. Roy v Union of India AIR 1972 SC 908
64) P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 394
65) Pathumma v State of Kerala AIR 1979 SC 771
66) People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of AIR 1982 SC 1473
India
67) PUDR v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 1473

68) R. v. Minister of Health (1943), 2 ALL ER 591

viii | P a g e
69) Rai Sahib Ram JawayaKapur and Ors. v. The State AIR 1955 SC 549.
of Punjab
70) Railway board v. Chandima Das, AIR 2000 SC 988
71) Ram Kumar Misra v. State of Bihar (1984) 2 SCC 451
72) Ratlam Municipality v. Vardhichand AIR 1980 SC 1622

73) Re: Natural Resources Allocation (2012) 10 SCC 1 (77)

74) Re:Kerala Education Bill, 1957 AIR 1958 SC 956

75) Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Trivandrum vs. AIR 1980 SC 350

K. Kunjabmu
76) S.R. Bommai vs Union Of India, 1994 SCC (3) 1994 SCC (3) 1
77) Salem Advocate Bar association v Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 344
78) SarbanandaSonowal v. Union of India And MANU/SC/0406/2005
Another
79) Shamsher Singh &Anr vs State Of Punjab AIR 1974 SC 2192
80) Shanti Bai v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1958 SC 532
81) Shantisar Builders v. Narayanan KhimalalTotamen AIR 1990 SC 630
82) Somadarsan Mohanty vs. Union of India, 2003 II OLR 452.
83) SP Gupta v. Union of India (1981) Supp SCC
84) St. Xavier’s College vs. Union of India,. (1974) 1 SCC 717

85) State of Bombay v Balsara F. N. AIR 1951 SC 609

86) State of Himachal Pradesh v. A Parent of a Student (1985) 3 SCC 169
of Medical College
87) State of Jammu and Kashmir v Sh. Triloki Nath (1974) 1 SCC 19
Khosa and Ors.
88) State of Madras v. V G Row AIR 1952 SC 196.
89) State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone etc. AIR 1981 SC 711

90) State of U. P. and Ors. v. Babu Ram Upadhyaya AIR 1961 SC 751

ix | P a g e
 91) Suresh Chandra Sharma v. Chairman AIR 2005 SC 2021
92) Swapan Kumar Pal and Ors. v. Samitabhar AIR 2001 SC 2353
Chakraborty and Ors.
93) T.Devadasan v. The Union Of India And Anr., AIR 1964 SC 179
94) TrimbakGangadbarTelangv.RGBbide AIR 1977 SC 122
95) Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar AIR 2001 SC 1877
96) UNR Rao v. Indira Gandhi AIR 1971 SC 1002.
97) Vineet Narain v Union of India AIR 1998 SC 889

STATUES REFERED

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. Assam Accord, 1985
3. Citizenship Act, 1955
4. Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019
5. Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016

BOOKS REFERED

1. C.K. Takwani, Interpretation on Administrative Law, Eastern Book Company, 31 (2008).

2. Edward S. Corwin, Constitution and What It Means Today, Princeton University Press , Ed.

1978, (1978).

3. H.M. Seervai, Constitutional law of India: A critical commentary, N.M. Tripathi, Ed. 4, Vol.

1, 2 & 3, (1991).

4. M P Jain, Indian constitutional law, LexisNexis, Ed.7, (2014)

5. Constituent Assembly Debates, vol. VII, pp. 891- 927

6. M.P. Jain and S.N. Jain’s Principles of Administrative Law Revised by Amita Dhanda (7th
ed., 2017) 2.

x|Page
7. I.P. Massey, Administrative Law (7th ed. 2008)

8. S.P. Sathe, Administrative Law reprint (7h ed., 2013)

9. H.W.R. Wade and C.F. Forsyth, Administrative Law (10th ed., 2009)

10. S.N. Jain, Administrative Tribunals in India (1977).

ARTICLES

1. Rio declaration on Environment and Development

2. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Declaration on
Environment and Development, 1992) - Earth summit.

REPORTS

1. Report on Public Interest Law, USA, 1976.

xi | P a g e
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Counsel for the petitioner, Loud Mouth and Ors, hereby humbly submits to this Hon’ble
Court’s jurisdiction under Article 321 of the Constitution of Republic of Gondor.

1
Indian Constitution, Art. 32, “(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), Parliament may by
law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers
exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this
Constitution”

xii | P a g e
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
Background

The Republic of Gondor (hereinafter, RoG) is a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic country with a
developing economy, with a quasi-federal system of governance and has a democratically
elected government once every 5 (five) years. After independence, Gondor was divided on
religious lines as – ROG and Mordor. Majority of Bantu shifted to Mordor and majority of
Ubuntu to RoG. In civil war of 1971, Mordor was divided into Winterfell and Mordor. Winterfell
is a Bantu dominated theocratic country. RoG share its international borders with 7 different
countries in which longest one being with Winterfell.

Citizenship Amendment Act

The Ubuntu Peoples Party (UPP), during Lok Sabha campaign promised to amend the
Citizenship Act, 1955 to allow certain persecuted religious minorities in neighbouring countries
to apply for citizenship in Gondor by relaxing conditions for citizenship. UPP formed
government in 2014. In 2016, Government of RoG presented a Citizenship (Amendment) Bill,
2016' (“Bill”) in the Lower House of Parliament seeking to amend Section 2 and the Third
Schedule of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the “Principal Act”). Bill faced
considerable opposition, especially in the State of Rivendale in Gondor as illegal migrants from
Winterfell keep invading their land disturbing their social, linguistic and cultural identity.
Government in order to protect it signed Riverdale Accor in 1985. To facilitate the entry of
people this Ministry of Home Ministry passed The Passport (Entry into Gondor) Amendment
Rules, 2015 & The Foreigners (Amendment) Order, 2015 (which were published in the Official
Gazette vide numbers G.S.R.685(E) & G.S.R.686(E). A Joint Parliamentary Committee
consisted of members of both houses conducted the survey and reported the benefits of Bill.
After which Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha passed the Bill with majority and received Presidential
Assent. The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2018 was published in Official Gazette.

Case filed in Hon’ble Supreme Court

Loud Mouth, NGO outside of Riverdale filed PIL before Hon’ble Supreme Court for the interest
of public of Riverdale on the ground that Amendment Act was based on religious contrary to the
Constitution of Gondor. Also, cut-off date of 31.12.2014 as determining valid entry is arbitrary.

xiii | P a g e
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME

COURT OF GONDOR?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENTACT, 2018 TO

THE PRINCIPAL ACT AREDISCRIMINATORY IN NATURE AND HENCE, ULTRA
VIRES THE CONSTITUTION OF GONDOR?

ISSUE 3

WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF THE PASSPORT (ENTRY INTO GONDOR)

AMENDMENT RULES, 2015 & THE FOREIGNERS (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 2015
ARE ARBITRARY AND NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE LAW
AND HENCE, ULTRA VIRESTHE CONSTITUTION OF GONDOR?

xiv | P a g e
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue 1: Present PIL is maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Gondor
In the present matter, Loud Mouth has filed a Public Interest Litigation against State. A PIL can
be filed under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed
by part III of the Constitution. It is to be humbly submit before the Hon’ble Court that PIL can be
filed by the Loud mouth as it has the locus standi in the present case, all the essentials of PIL are
being fulfilled, and exhaustion of alternate remedies is not a bar.

Issue 2: The provisions of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2018 to the Principal Act are
discriminatory in nature and hence, ultra vires the Constitution of Gondor.
Counsel of Loud Mouth Humbly Submits that PIL have been filed against the state claiming that
the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2018 is ultra vires to the Constitution of the Gondor as It is
against the Basic structure of the Constitution of Gondor, It is against the Public Interest and
National Security and It is a danger to the Culture and Heritage of Rivendale.

Issue 3: The provisions of the Passport (Entry into Gondor) Amendment Rules, 2015 &
The Foreigners (Amendment) Order, 2015 are arbitrary and not in accordance with the
applicable law and hence, ultra vires the Constitution of Gondor.
Counsel of Loud Mouth Humbly Submits that PIL have been filed against the state claiming that
the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2018 is ultra vires to the Constitution of the Gondor as it is not
co-extensive with the legislative power, It is substantive ultra vires to the applicable law, There
is need for legislative approval for compliance to executive order, It is unreasonable and
arbitrary in nature and It is violative of the Rivendale Accord, 1985.

xv | P a g e
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue 1: Present PIL is maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Gondor
¶1 In the present matter, Loud Mouth has filed a Public Interest Litigation against State. A PIL
can be filed under Article 322 of the Constitution for enforcement of Fundamental Rights
guaranteed by part III of the Constitution.3 It is to be humbly submit before the Hon’ble Court
that PIL can be filed by the Loud mouth as it have the locus standi in the present case[1.A], all
the essentials of PIL are being fulfilled [1.B], exhaustion of alternate remedies is not a bar [1.C].

[1.A] There is Local Standi in the present case

¶2 The Loud Mouth humbly submits that it has locus standi in this case by filing PIL as the court
in SP Gupta v. Union of India4 held that ‘any member of the public or social action group acting
bonafide can invoke the writ jurisdiction of the HC or the SC seeking redressal against violation
of any legal, constitutional or fundamental right of persons.5 In this context the judiciary
entertained the public interest litigation to protect the interest of the general public by liberalizing
the principle of locus standi.6

¶3 In case of D.C. Wadhaw v. State of Bihar7, The Court observed that even a member of public
has locus standi, as it is the right of every citizen to insist that he should be governed by laws
made in accordance with Constitution and not laws made by the executive in violation of
constitutional provisions.8As such third party intervention is not governed by the strict rule of
locus standi. Thus, PIL makes a departure of the rule that only the aggrieved can approach the
court.9

2
Indian Constitution, Art. 32.
3
Andhra Industrial Works v Chief Controller of Imports and Ors, AIR 1974 SC 1539 ¶ 10; Guruvayur Devaswom
Managing Committee v. CK Rajan and Ors, (2003) 7 SCC 546 ¶ 50, BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union
of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333.
4
(1981) Supp SCC 87 ¶ 210.
5
PUDR v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473; Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161.
6
Ram Kumar Misra v. State of Bihar, (1984) 2 SCC 451: AIR 1984 SC 1069; State of Himachal Pradesh v. A
Parent of a Student of Medical College, (1985) 3 SCC 169: AIR 1985 SC 910.
7
(1987) 1 SCC 378: AIR 1987 SC 579.
8
Id.
9
People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473

1|Page
¶4 In Ratlam Municipality v. Vardhichand,10 the petitioner was allowed to raise the question of
public interest when he also suffered along with other members of the society, even though his
injury was not specific. The Supreme Court entertained a letter sent by two professors of Delhi
University seeking enforcement of the Constitutional right of the inmates in a protective home at
Agra who were living in inhuman and degrading conditions in blatant violation of Article 21 of
the Constitution.11 Further, any citizen of India or any consumer groups or social action groups
can approach the SC seeking legal remedies in all cases where the interests of general public or a
section of public are at stake.12

¶5 It was made clear in Janata Dal v H.S. Chaudhary13 that only a person ‘acting bona fide’14
and ‘having sufficient public interest’15 in the proceeding of public interest litigation will have
alone the locus standi but not a person for personal gain or political motive or any oblique
consideration. The NGO is known for taking up several public issues before various Courts of
the Country. In the present Matter, petitioner is a voluntary non-Governmental association
concerned with the repercussions of passing the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2018. 16 Therefore,
prima facie, this PIL has been filed against the discriminatory laws imposed by the govt. where
the interest of general public is at stake.

[1.B.] All the essentials of PIL are being fulfilled.

¶6 Moreover, a “third party” may approach the court in the interest of the aggrieved; the
conditions are, firstly, there must be a substantial question of law or there must be a violation of
fundamental rights [1.B.i] and secondly, the petition must be in the public spirit [1.B.ii.].17 A
person can file a writ on behalf of an unrelated other.18

10
AIR 1980 SC 1622.
11
Dr. Upendra Baxi (I) v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., (1983) 2 SCC 308.
12
Manas Samantaray & Mritunjay Sharma, Public Interest Litigation: A conceptual Framework, 2 3 IMR 2012.
13
Janata Dal v H.S. Chaudhary, AIR 1993 SC 892.
14
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 844.
15
Vineet Narain v Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 889.
16
The Moot Proposition ¶ 15.
17
People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473; Kishore Samriti v. State of U.P.,
(2013) 2 SCC 398; Railway board v. Chandima Das, AIR 2000 SC 988.
18
Chairman, Railway board v. Chandima Das, AIR 2000 SC 988.

2|Page
[1.B.i.] Fundamental Rights have been violated
¶7 It is submitted that as held by the majority in the Full Bench decision of 13 Hon’ble Judges in
Keshvananda Bharati v. State of Kerala19 and reiterated and reaffirmed in the case of I. R.
Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu20 that Article 368 does not enable Parliament to alter the basic
structure of the Constitution. A person can maintain the PIL where fundamental rights are
violated or human rights of the unprivileged that are unable to come to court due to some
disadvantage.21

¶8 Petitioner does not necessary be a victim but he is entitled to move to court for the
enforcement of the Fundamental right and constitutional right who are affected. 22 If the court is
prima facie satisfied about the violation of any constitutional right of a group of people
belonging to the disadvantaged group, it may not allow the state or government from raising the
question of maintainability.23

¶9 Under Article 32 the validity of the legislation or administrative action cannot be invoked
unless it affects the fundamental rights and is against the public interest.24 If there is infringement
of the fundamental rights the court is bound to issue the appropriate writ and administer the
case.25 In the present case the rights of people of Rivendale are violated and there is also
discrimination on the basis of the religion as Bantu religion is excluded from the amendment.

[1.B.ii] Public Interest is the essence to file a PIL

¶11 The expression ‘litigation’ means a legal action including all proceedings initiated in court
for enforcement of right or seeking a remedy under any law. ‘Public interest’ is something in
which the public or some interest by which legal rights or liabilities of public, are affected. 26 It is
does not mean that which interests as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement
but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest affecting
legal rights or liabilities.27 It is an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social

19
Keshvananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973 (4) SCC 225, Pg. No.1007.
20
I. R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2007 (2) SCC 1, Pg. No. 111.
21
Somadarsan Mohanty vs. Union of India, 2003 II OLR 452.
22
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1115.
23
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161.
24
Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1457.
25
Shanti Bai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1958 SC 532.
26
Garner, Black's Law Dictionary, Thomas & West, Ed. 6, USA.
27
B. Singh v Union of India &Ors, (2004) 3 SCC 363.

3|Page
justice to citizens.28 Further, there must be real and genuine public interest involved in the
litigation and concrete or credible basis for maintaining a cause before court and not merely an
adventure of knight errant borne out of wishful thinking.29

¶12 In Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India &Ors.30, Supreme Court observed that the ‘public interest
law’ has recently been given to efforts which provide legal representation to previously
unrepresented groups and interests and such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition that
ordinary marketplace for legal services fails to provide such services to significant segments of
the population and to significant interests. Such groups and interests include the proper
environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others.31 It is not necessary for the
person to personally approach the court. The petition can be filed by any public sprit person or
body.32 In the present matter, Loud Mouth has filed a petition under PIL challenging the
constitutionality of the Act which relaxes the grounds for applying for naturalization by illegal
migrants of Mordor, Afghanistan and Winterfell the basis of religion contrary to the principles of
the Constitution of Gondor.33

[1.C] Exhaustion of alternate remedies is not a bar.

¶13 It is submitted that the availability of alternate remedy does not restrict the issue of writ. In
Coffee Board v. Jt. Commercial Tax Officer34, it was held that when a FR is breached then the
provisions of other remedies do not stand in the way of exercising power under Article 32 of the
Constitution. Further, it is wholly erroneous to establish that before invoking the jurisdiction of
SC the applicant must either establish that he has no other remedy adequate or otherwise or that
he has exhausted such remedies as the law affords and has yet not obtained proper redress, for
when once it is proved to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court that by state action the

28
Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC 349;Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Ors. (1992)
4 SCC 305.
29
Supra 29.
30
Id.
31
Report on Public Interest Law, USA, 1976.
32
Bodhisattwa Gautam vs, Subhra Chakraborty, (1996) 1 SCC 490; J. Jayalalitha v. Government of Tamil Nadu and
Ors., MANU/SC/0861/1999.
33
The Moot Proposition , ¶ 15.
34
AIR 1971 SC 870, ¶ 16.

4|Page
Fundamental Right of a petitioner under Art. 32 have been infringed and it is not only the right
but also duty of the Supreme Court to pass appropriate order.35
¶14 Further, mere existence of an adequate alternative legal remedy cannot per se be a good and
sufficient ground to throw out a petition filed under Art.32 if there is existence of a fundamental
right and breach, actual or threatened, of such right and is alleged prima facie established on the
petition.36 Therefore, even in the presence of alternate remedy PIL filed by Loud Mouth is
maintainable.

Issue 2: The provisions of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2018 to the Principal Act are
discriminatory in nature and hence, ultra vires the Constitution of Gondor.
¶15 Counsel of Loud Mouth Humbly Submits that PIL have been filed against the state claiming
that the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2018 is ultra vires to the Constitution of the Gondor as It is
against the Basic structure of the Constitution of Gondor [2.A], It is against the Public Interest
and National Security [2.B] and It is a danger to the Culture and Heritage of Rivendale [2.C].

[2.A] It is against the Basic structure of the Constitution of Gondor.

¶16 It is humbly submitted that in the present case is violative of Right to Equality under Article
14[2.A.i]; It is against the Secularism [2.A.ii]; and it is Violative of Article 21[2.A.iii]

[2.A.i] It is Violation of Right to Equality under Article 14.

¶17 It is humbly submitted that the main objective of Article 14 is to secure to all persons,
citizens or noncitizens, the equality of status and opportunity referred to in the Preamble of the
Constitution.37 Article 14 ensures that every person gets equality before law and equal protection
of law.38 Equal protection principle does not take away the power of State for classification of
persons for the legitimate purpose.39 The doctrine of equality should remain superior to doctrine
of classification.40

35
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295.
36
KK Kochunni v State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725.
37
In Re: Natural Resources Allocation, (2012) 10 SCC 1 (77).
38
Indian Constitution, Article 14.
39
State of Bombay v Balsara F. N., AIR 1951 SC 609.
40
Mohd.Shujat Ali v UOI, AIR 1974 SC 1631.

5|Page
¶18 IMDT Act to the State of Assam alone is wholly discriminatory and violates Article 14 of
the Constitution as the classification made is not founded upon any intelligible differentia and
there is no nexus between the basis of the classification and the object of the IMDT Act. 41 It is
well established that equality as defined under Article 14 is not equality amongst all but is a
qualified equality- equality among equals.42
¶19 If a law is arbitrary or irrational it would fall foul of Article 14.43 Every executive or
legislative action of State must be non-arbitrary and reasonable otherwise the court would
declare it invalid.44 Moreover, for an Act of the Parliament to be not-violative of fundamental
rights, it must not be an arbitrary act of the state,45 and fulfil two conditions. Firstly, Intelligible
differentia which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from others left out in the
group.46This can be ascertained from examination of its title, preamble47 and provisions of the
Act48; and Secondly, Rational nexus49which connects the object sought to be achieved by the act
with the intelligible differentia.50His has to be ascertained from the object of Actand not on any
moral considerations or other things.51 Intelligible Differentia and Rational Nexus are the twin
tests of reasonable classification.52 The twofold test relies on two principles, that is, reasonable
classification and nexus between the object sought to be achieved and the legislation.53
¶20 If we test this Act on reasonable classification, it fails, as the classification sought is to
differentiate between persons who will be granted relaxation in the domiciliary requirement and
those who will not. Since, at present, it excludes illegal immigrants only on religious grounds,
with no reasonable explanation. The next test is on object sought to be achieved. Putting a
qualification based on religion has no rational nexus to achieve that object. The Citizenship
Amendment Act, 2018 goes against the well settled principle of Reasonable classification

41
Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar, MANU/SC/0047/1954.
42
T.Devadasan v. The Union Of India And Anr., AIR 1964 SC 179
43
Salem Advocate Bar association v Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344; see also, Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal
Pradesh, AIR 1983 SC 454.
44
Supra note 18, p 909.
45
KasturiLal Lakshmi Reddy v State of J &K, AIR 1980 SC 1992 ¶14.
46
Pathumma v State of Kerala, AIR 1979 SC 771, ¶41.
47
Kausha PN v Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 1457, ¶¶ 60-62; Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 321,
¶9.
48
P. B. Roy v Union of India, AIR 1972 SC 908.
49
KedarNathBajoria v State of W.B, AIR 1953 SC 404.
50
Hanif v State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731.
51
Garg RK v Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 2138, ¶17.
52
State of Jammu and Kashmir v Sh. TrilokiNathKhosa and Ors., (1974) 1 SCC 19.
53
State of Madras v. V G Row, AIR 1952 SC 196.

6|Page
enshrined under Art. 14 of the Constitution. The act provides for an opportunity to a particular
community to seek citizenship of India and denies the same to the other communities despite of
the fact that the fundamental right of equal treatment is available to each and every person
whether citizen or non-citizen.

[2.A.ii] It is against the Secularism.

¶21 It is humbly submitted that Secularism is a constitutional goal and a basic feature of the
Constitution. Any step, inconsistent with this constitutional policy, is, in plain words,
unconstitutional.54 Secularism is a part of fundamental law and an unalienable segment of the
basic structure of the country’s political system.55 Justice Verma in case of M. Ismail Faruqui v.
Union of India observed that the concept of secularism is clear in the constitution scheme that
guarantees equality in the matter of the religion to all Individuals.56 Secularism is one of the
facets of the Right to equality woven as the golden thread in the fabric depicting the pattern of
the scheme of our constitution.57

¶22 The Supreme Court has ruled that the concept of secularism is not endangered if concept of
all the religion in the world are studied and learnt. 58 The state does not extend patronage to any
particular religion. It maintains the neutrality in the matters of religion and provides equal
protection to all religious matters.59 Supreme Court in Nainsuleh Das vs. State of U.P.60 held that
the constitutional mandate to the state not to discriminate on the ground, inter alia, of religion
extends to political as well as other rights.

¶23 The grant of the Citizenship on the base of religion goes against the settled principle of
secularism in Gondor. Although the term religion in not explicit in the text but it is deeply
embedded in it as few religions are excluded with no reasonable explanation.61 Remove the
concession of six to 12 years of residence to immigrants based only the religion of the migrants,
as it is inimical to the idea of secularism. The illegal immigrants who are to be granted the
benefit of this legislation are to qualify for citizenship only on the basis of religion; a
54
S.R. Bommai vs Union Of India, 1994 SCC (3) 1, ¶186,252.
55
Supra 21.
56
M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 605.
57
Id.
58
(2002) 7 SCC 368.
59
Supra 58.
60
Nainsuleh Das vs. State of U.P., AIR 1953 SC 384.
61
The Moot Proposition ¶ 8.

7|Page
requirement that goes against one of the basic tenets of the Constitution of Gondor, secularism.
Therefore, the basic structure of the Constitution of Gondor is violated in the present case.

[2.A.iii] it is Violative of Article 21.

¶24 It is humbly submitted that under Article 21 of the Constitution, every citizen has a
fundamental right to live in dignity and peace.62 The word “Life” under Article 21 means a
quality of life63, which includes right of food, and reasonable accommodation to live in64 and the
right to a wholesome environment.65 Also International covenant on Civil and Political rights
(ICCPR)66 and Universal Declaration of the Human Rights (UDHR)67 recognizes right to life and
adequate standard of living.

¶25 Further in order to establish violation of Article 21, the act should be subjected to the
equality test of Article 14 and test of reasonableness under Article 19.68 Article 14 strikes at
arbitrariness because it negates equality69 and permeates the entire fabric of Rule of Law.70
Therefore, every action of the State must be guided by reason for public good and not by misuse
of the power.71 Right to life with human dignity and would include all these aspects of life which
would go to make a man's life meaningful.72

¶26 State of Rivendale has repeatedly witnessed ethnic clashes and violence leading to loss of
human lives and destruction of properties.73 The State is unable to ensure the safety and security
of its inhabitants thereby resulting in a direct infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution of
Gondor. Therefore, there is violation of Article 21 arises. But at the same time it is also a reality
that Article 21 can be claimed by any person. But providing citizenship to foreigners will
definitely curtail the facilities of existing citizens of Republic of Gondor.

62
Francis Coralie v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746.
63
Id.
64
Shantisar Builders v. Narayanan Khimalal Totamen, AIR 1990 SC 630.
65
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480.
66
International covenant on Civil and Political rights, (ICCPR), Article 6.
67
Universal Declaration of the Human Rights (UDHR), Article 3.
68
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
69
Suresh Chandra Sharma v. Chairman, AIR 2005 SC 2021.
70
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1325.
71
Haryana Development Authority v. Dropadi Devi, (2005) 9 SCC 514; Dolly Chandra v. Chairman Jee, (2005) 9
SCC 779.
72
P. Rathinam v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 394, ¶ 27; C. Masilamani Mudaliar v. Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami
Swaminathaswami Thirukoil, (1996) 8 SCC 525.
73
The Moot Proposition, ¶ 9.

8|Page
[2.B] It is a danger to the Culture and Heritage of Rivendale.
¶27 It is hereby humbly submitted before the honorable court that Article 29 (1)74 of the
Constitution confers a fundamental right on all sections of citizens residing in the territory of
India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own to conserve the
same and any invasion of this right would be ultra vires. Special rights for minorities were
designed not to create inequality. Their real effect was to bring about equality by ensuring the
preservation of the minority institution and by guaranteeing to the minorities autonomy in the
matter of the administration of those institutions.75 The Noble ideal of the a secular welfare state
is setup by the constitution.76

¶28 In the case of Assam Sanmilita Maha sangha77 Court observed that: “as a result of
population movement from Bangladesh, the specter looms large of the indigenous people of
Assam being reduced to a minority in their home state.”78 Their cultural survival will be in
jeopardy, their political control will be weakened and their employment opportunities will be
undermined.79 Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof
having a distinct language, script and culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the
same.80 The word is used not merely to indicate the minority in the technical sense of the word; it
is also used to cover minorities which are not minorities in a technical sense, a nut which are
nonetheless minorities in the cultural and linguistic sense.81

¶29 It is hereby humbly submitted before the honorable court that there are several international
treaties, declarations protection and promotion of cultural rights to which Gondor is signatory.
One of these is Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. Article 2782 states that “Everyone
has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to

74
Indian Constitution., Article 29(1); “Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof
having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same”.
75
St. Xavier’s College vs. Union of India, (1974) 1 SCC 717.
76
M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 649.
77
(2015) 3 SCC 1.
78
Assam Samhita Mahasangha & ors. v. Union of India & ors., Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 562 of 2012.
79
Report on threat posed by influx of people from Bangladesh, submitted to the then president of India , by
lieutenant general S.K. Sinha, the then governor of Assam.
80
Constituent Assembly Debates, vol. VII, pp. 891- 927.
81
Re:Kerala Education Bill, 1957, AIR 1958 SC 956.
82
Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in
scientific advancement and its benefits. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests
resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

9|Page
share in scientific advancement and its benefits. Everyone has the right to the protection of the
moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which
he is the author.” There is also one other treaty of which Gondor is a signatory and which talks
about protection of culture of indigenous people. Rio declaration on Environment and
Development, Principle 2283 of his declaration states:

“Indigenous people and their communities and other local communities have a vital role in
environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional
practices. States should recognize and duly support their identity, culture and interests and
enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development.”84

¶30 The amendment greatly affects the people of the Rivendale and even after the reasonable
protest of the people the bill was passed by the parliament violating the cultural and residential
rights of the people of Rivendale. Therefore, it violative of the minority rights.

Issue 3: The provisions of the Passport (Entry into Gondor) Amendment Rules, 2015 &
The Foreigners (Amendment) Order, 2015 are arbitrary and not in accordance with the
applicable law and hence, ultra vires the Constitution of Gondor.
¶31 Counsel of Loud Mouth Humbly Submits that PIL have been filed against the state claiming
that the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2018 is ultra vires to the Constitution of the Gondor as it is
not co-extensive with the legislative power [3.A], It is substantive ultra vires to the applicable
law[3.B], There is need for legislative approval for compliance to executive order[3.C], It is
unreasonable and arbitrary in nature[3.D] and It is violative of the Rivendale Accord, 1985[3.E].

[3.A] It is not co-extensive with the legislative power.

¶32 It is humbly submitted that Executive instructions cannot amend or supersede the statutory
rules or add something therein, nor the orders be issued in contravention of the statutory rules for
the reason that an administrative instruction is not a statutory Rule nor does it have any force of

83
Rio declaration on Environment and Development
84
Principle 22, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development, 1992) - Earth summit.

10 | P a g e
law;85 while statutory rules have full force of law provided the same are not in conflict with the
provisions of the Act.86

¶33 In M/s. Bishamber Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P. and Ors.,87 the Hon’ble Supreme
Court explained the difference in a statutory order and an executive order observing that
executive instruction issued under Article 162 of the Constitution does not amount to law88.
However, if an order can be referred to a statutory provision and held to have been passed under
the said statutory provision,89 it would not be merely an executive fiat but an order under the
Statute having statutory force for the reason that it would be a positive State made law. 90 So, in
order to examine as to whether an order has a statutory force, the Court has to find out and
determine as to whether it can be referred to the provision of the Statute.91

¶34 There certain contentions raised that is executive government of a state competent to make
rules, without any legislative sanction, as our Constitution clearly recognizes a division of
92
governmental functions into three categories, viz., the legislative, the judicial and the
executive,93 the function of the executive cannot but be to execute the laws passed by the
legislature or to supervise the enforcement of the same.94 The legislature must first enact a
measure which the executive can then carry out.95 The limits within which the executive
Government can function under the Indian Constitution can be ascertained without much
difficulty.96

¶35 In the present case, Passport Amendment Rules, 2015 & The Foreigners (Amendment)
Order, 2015 are the executive order passed by the ministry of home affairs as the part of

85
Vide State of U. P. and Ors. v. Babu Ram Upadhyaya, AIR 1961 SC 751; State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind
Stone etc., AIR 1981 SC 711.
86
Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar, AIR 2001 SC 1877; Swapan Kumar Pal and Ors. v. Samitabhar Chakraborty
and Ors., AIR 2001 SC 2353.
87
AIR 1982 SC 33.
88
Swapan Kumar Pal and Ors. v. Samitabhar Chakraborty and Ors., AIR 2001 SC 2353.
89
Khet Singh v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 380.
90
Laxminarayan R. Bhattad and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., (2003) 5 SCC 413.
91
Delhi Development Authority v. Joginder S. Monga, (2004) 2 SCC 297.
92
A. Sanjeevi Naidu v. State of Madras, (1970) 3 S CR 505, Pg. No. 511.
93
Motilal v. The Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh, MANU/UP/0312/1950 : AIR 1951 All 257.
94
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549.
95
Shamsher Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 2192.
96
UNR Rao v. Indira Gandhi, AIR 1971 SC 1002.

11 | P a g e
executive but it Section 2 (b) of the Citizenship act, 1955 which gives the power for the
executive to pass any order. Therefore, it is not consistent with the parent act.

[3.B] It is substantive ultra vires to the applicable law.

¶36 It is humbly submitted that there is also no doubt whatsoever that the courts have
jurisdiction to declare invalid a delegated legislation if in making it, the person/body to whom
power is delegated to make the rules or regulations, acted outside the legislative powers
conferred on him/it by the Act of Parliament under which the rules or regulations were purported
to have been made.

¶37 Firstly, the basic requirement is that the parent Act should be constitutional; if it does, it
would be Ultra Vires.97 and Secondly, the subordinate legislation should not be Ultra Vires to the
Constitution.98 Parent Act should not be violated. This is an essential requisite, and, the
subordinate legislation should not go beyond its power or authority defined in the parent Act.99
In case of delegated legislation, unlike an Act of the Parliament, the court can inquire into
whether it is within the limits laid down by the present statute. If a piece of delegated legislation
were found to be beyond such limits, court would declare it to be ultra vires and hence invalid.100

¶38 The doctrine of ultra-vires is applicable where there is lack of jurisdiction or wrongful
assumption of jurisdiction or error of law apparent on the face of record within jurisdiction. The
court can exercise jurisdiction against the decision of a tribunal if it has exceeded its
jurisdiction101 or violated the principles of natural justice102 or findings are based on no
evidence103 or otherwise perverse104 or there is an error apparent on the face of record.105 The
present case the subordinate legislation passed by Ministry of Home Affairs is ultra vires to the
parent act as well as constitution. As it allows the illegal migrants as defined under applicable
law are exempted on the basis of the community. When legislative power is delegated the power

97
Chintaman Rao v. State of MP, AIR 1951 SC 118.
98
Narendra Kumar And Ors v. The Union of India And Ors, AIR 1960 SC 430.
99
Mohammad Yasin v. Town Area Committee, AIR 1952 SC 115.
100
R. v. Minister of Health, (1943), 2 ALL ER 591.
101
Jijabai v. Pathankhan, AIR 1971 SC 315.
102
Trimbak Gangadbar Telang v.RG Bbide, AIR 1977 SC 122.
103
Mohan Amba Prasad Agnihotn v. BhaskarBAher, (2000) 3 SCC 190 and Mani Nariman Daruwala v. Pbiroz
NBhatena, (1991) 3 SCC 141.
104
Maharashtra v. Harishchandra, (1986) 3 SCC 349.
105
Nagendra Nath v. Commissioner of Hills DL, AIR 1958 SC 398.

12 | P a g e
must be exercised within the scope of the authority conferred by the enabling act. When it
exceeds the authority it is ultra virus the enabling status and is invalid. Therefore, it is ultra vires
to the applicable law.

[3.C] There is need for legislative approval for compliance to executive order.
¶39 It is humbly submitted that the courts have held that framing of legislative policy is an
essential function and cannot be delegated to an administrative body.106 However, they have
generally leaned towards upholding the validity of rules. 107 When the legislature confers powers
on an authority to make delegated legislation, it must lay down policy, principle or standard for
the guideline for the authority concerned.108 The decisions regarding the policy matters still rest
with the legislature whereas only ancillary decision making functions are delegated to the
executive.109

¶40 The legislature has the authority to delegate the power to modify an Act as long as the
legislative policy remains intact.110 Legislature can validly delegate its legislative function to the
executive after fulfilling all the conditional delegation. Regarding the power conferred on the
executive to make modifications,111 the majority seems to have arrived at an agreement on the
point that the power to modify did not mean the power to make essential changes. 112 Regarding
the power conferred on the executive to make modifications,113 the majority seems to have
arrived at an agreement on the point that the power to modify did not mean the power to make
essential changes.114

¶41 In the present case the applicable law declares the people illegal migrants if they are found
without valid documents or with valid documents but have crossed the time period. But the order
passed on the basis of religion exempt those people. It is the against the power conferred as no

106
Harishankar Bagla vs. State of M.P, AIR 1954 SC 465.
107
Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Trivandrum vs. K. Kunjabmu, AIR 1980 SC 350; Bhatnagars & Co., vs.
Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 478.
108
I.P.Massey, Administrative Law, Eastern Book Company, Ed.8, 2008 Pg no. 102.
109
Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, (1974) 4 SCC 98.
110
Mohammas Yasin vs. Town Area Committee, Jalalabad, AIR 1952 SC 115.
111
Harishankar Bhagla v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 465.
112
Maganbhai Sanjanwala v. State of Bombay, AIR 1961 SC 4, Pg. No. 7.
113
Bhatnagar & Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 478.
114
Edward Mills Co. v. State of Ajmer, AIR 1955 SC 25.

13 | P a g e
essential change can be made by the delegated power. Therefore, it is ultra vires to the
Constitution of Gondor and the parent act.

[3.D] It is unreasonable and arbitrary in nature

¶42 It is humbly submitted that firstly, it is against the principle of reasonable classification and
Secondly, principle of secularism as If a law is arbitrary or irrational it would fall foul of Article
14.115 Every executive or legislative action of State must be non-arbitrary and reasonable
otherwise the court would declare it invalid.116

[3.D.i] It is Violation of Right to Equality under Article 14.

¶43 It is humbly submitted that the main objective of Article 14 is to secure to all persons,
citizens or noncitizens, the equality of status and opportunity referred to in the Preamble of the
Constitution.117 Article 14 ensures that every person gets equality before law and equal
protection of law.118 Equal protection principle does not take away the power of State for
classification of persons for the legitimate purpose.119 The doctrine of equality should remain
superior to doctrine of classification.

¶44 An Act of the executive to be not-violative of fundamental rights, it must not be an arbitrary
act of the state,120 and fulfil two conditions. Firstly, Intelligible differentia which distinguishes
persons or things grouped together from others left out in the group.121This can be ascertained
from examination of its title, preamble122 and provisions of the Act123; and Secondly, Rational
nexus124which connects the object sought to be achieved by the act with the intelligible
differentia.125His has to be ascertained from the object of Act and not on any moral
considerations or other things.126 Intelligible Differentia and Rational Nexus are the twin tests of

115
Salem Advocate Bar association v Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344; see also, Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal
Pradesh, AIR 1983 SC 454.
116
Supra note 18, p 909.
117
In Re: Natural Resources Allocation, (2012) 10 SCC 1 (77).
118
Indian Constitution, Article 14.
119
State of Bombay v Balsara F. N., AIR 1951 SC 609.
120
KasturiLal Lakshmi Reddy v State of J &K, AIR 1980 SC 1992 ¶14.
121
Pathumma v State of Kerala, AIR 1979 SC 771, ¶41.
122
Kausha PN v Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 1457, ¶¶ 60-62; Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 321,
¶9.
123
P. B. Roy v Union of India, AIR 1972 SC 908.
124
KedarNathBajoria v State of W.B, AIR 1953 SC 404.
125
Hanif v State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731.
126
Garg RK v Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 2138, ¶17.

14 | P a g e
reasonable classification.127 The twofold test relies on two principles, that is, reasonable
classification and nexus between the object sought to be achieved and the legislation.128

¶45 If we test this Act on reasonable classification, it fails, as the classification sought is to
differentiate between persons who will be granted relaxation in the domiciliary requirement and
those who will not. Since, at present, it excludes illegal immigrants only on religious grounds,
with no reasonable explanation. The next test is on object sought to be achieved. Putting a
qualification based on religion has no rational nexus to achieve that object. The Passport (Entry
into Gondor) Amendment Rules, 2015 & The Foreigners (Amendment) Order, 2015 goes against
the well settled principle of Reasonable classification enshrined under Art. 14 of the
Constitution. Therefore, it is not consistent with the constitution of the Gondor and applicable
law.

[3.D.ii] It is against the Secularism.

¶46 It is humbly submitted that Secularism is a constitutional goal and a basic feature of the
Constitution. Any step, inconsistent with this constitutional policy, is, in plain words,
unconstitutional.129 Secularism is a part of fundamental law and an unalienable segment of the
basic structure of the country’s political system.130 The Supreme Court has ruled that the concept
of secularism is not endangered if concept of all the religion in the world are studied and
learnt.131

¶47 The state does not extend patronage to any particular religion. It maintains the neutrality in
the matters of religion and provides equal protection to all religious matters.132 Supreme Court in
Nainsuleh Das vs. State of U.P.133 held that the constitutional mandate to the state not to
discriminate on the ground, inter alia, of religion extends to political as well as other rights

¶48 The grant of the immigration on the base of religion goes against the settled principle of
secularism in Gondor. Although the term religion in not explicit in the text but it is deeply

127
State of Jammu and Kashmir v Sh. TrilokiNathKhosa and Ors., (1974) 1 SCC 19.
128
State of Madras v. V G Row, AIR 1952 SC 196.
129
S.R. Bommai vs Union Of India, 1994 SCC (3) 1, ¶186,252.
130
Keshvananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973 (4) SCC 225.
131
(2002) 7 SCC 368.
132
M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 605.
133
Nainsuleh Das vs. State of U.P., AIR 1953 SC 384.

15 | P a g e
embedded in it as few religions are excluded with no reasonable explanation.134 Remove the
concession of six to 12 years of residence to immigrants based only the religion of the migrants,
as it is inimical to the idea of secularism. The illegal immigrants who are to be granted the
benefit of this legislation are to qualify for immigration only on the basis of religion; a
requirement that goes against one of the basic tenets of the Constitution of Gondor, secularism.
Therefore, it is not consistent with the constitution of the Gondor and applicable law.

[3.E] It is violative of the Rivendale Accord, 1985.

¶49 It is humbly submitted that the object which should be achieved by the statue should not be
in violation of the fundamental right which is given under the constitution of India. 135 IMDT Act
as section 6-a (3) to (5) of is not bound but is time going and that is the reason it is violating the
article 14 of the constitution of India.136

¶50 In the late 1970's the mass influx of the illegal migrants during the civil war in Mordor
resulted in according the local population, social, linguistic and cultural identity and even created
a strain on their already scarce economic resources. The next few years witnessed a spree of
protests by the local population against the illegal migrants and several rounds of negotiations
with the government of Gondor later culminated into signing of the Rivendale Accord in the year
1985.137 The Rivendale Accord mandated that those who settled in the state of Rivendale.
Therefore, it is not with accordance with the applicable law.

134
The Moot Proposition ¶ 8.
135
Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India And Another, Writ Petition (civil) 131 of 2000
136
Supra 80.
137
The Moot Proposition ¶ 9.

16 | P a g e
 PRAYER

Wherefore in light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,

The Counsel for the Petitioner respectfully requests this Hon’ble

Court to adjudge and declare that:

On behalf of Petitioner (Loud Mouth)

The special leave petition made by Mr. Simha is maintainable before this Hon’ble Court under
Art.136.

I. Present PIL is maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Gondor.

II. The provisions of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2018 to the Principal Act are
discriminatory in nature and hence, ultra vires the Constitution of Gondor.
III. The provisions of the Passport (Entry into Gondor) Amendment Rules, 2015 & The
Foreigners (Amendment) Order, 2015 are arbitrary and not in accordance with the
applicable law and hence, ultra vires the Constitution of Gondor.

……………………….Counsel of the Petitioner

17 | P a g e