Best Team Memorial Respondent Nlujaa Vox Anatolis National Realrishabh11 Gmailcom 20221201 131156 1 18

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Thursday, December 01, 2022

Printed For: Rishabh Kalra, IMS, School of Law, Dehradun
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st NLUJAA Vox Anatolis National Moot, 2019

Best Team Memorial - Respondent
In the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pochinki

Original Jurisdiction
Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution of Pochinki
Public Interest Litigation No. ________
Case Concerning the Constitutionality of Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2017
In the Matter of
All Kameshki Student's Union . . Petitioner;
Versus
Union of Pochinki . . Respondent.
To
Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Pochinki and his Lordship's Companion Justices of the
Supreme Court of Pochinki
Written Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 10
STATEMENT OF FACTS 11
ISSUES RAISED 12
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 13
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 1
1. THAT THE PUBLIC I NTEREST LITIGATION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE HON'BLE 1
COURT
1.1. The petitioner has not exhausted Alternative Remedies 1
1.2. There is no violation of Fundamental Rights 2
2. THAT THE CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2017 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID 3
2.1. The Impugned Act Does Not Violate Article 14 3
2.2. The Impugned Act is not violative of Article 21 5
2.3. The Impugned Act does not violate Article 29 9
3. THAT THE UNION GOVERNMENT CANNOT DEPORT THE I MMIGRANTS WHO CAME TO 11
POCHINKI FROM MYLTA AND GATKA
3.1. The said Immigrants are Refugees 11
3.2. The said Immigrants enjoy Protection under the Domestic Law. 12
3.3. The said Immigrants enjoy Protection under International Law 13
4. THAT THE CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2017 FOLLOWS THE BASIC 15
STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND IS HENCE CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID
4.1. The Impugned Act is not violative of Fundamental Rights 15
4.2. The Impugned Act Promotes Secularism 15
4.3. Transformative Constitutionalism 15
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 18
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
A.I.R. All India Reporter
Anr. Another
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art. Article
Ors. Others
Sec. Section
v. Versus
Vol. Volume
Ed. Edition
PIL Public Interest Litigation
UOI Union of India
PPP Peoples' Party of Pochinki
SC Supreme Court
r/w Read With
Hon'ble Honourable
& And
Ltd. Limited
p. Page
Citizenship Act Pochinki Citizenship Act, 1950
Constitution The Constitution of Pochinki,
1951
¶ Paragraph
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES REFERRED
Abhudhya Sanstha v. UoI, (2011) 6 SCC 145 1
Arunachal Pradesh v. Khudiram Chakma, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 615 12
Ashutish Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 34 4
Assam Sanmilitia Mahasangh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (2015) 3 1
SCC 1
Attorney General v. Zaoui, 1 NZLR 289 13
Bal Patil & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 690 : AIR 2005 SC 9
3172
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar R. Nandkarni, (1983) 7, 12
1 SCC 124 : AIR 1983 SC 109
Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1996) 2 SCC 549 12, 7
Chiranjeet Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41 3
Confederation of All Nagaland State Services Employees' Assn. v. State of 2
Nagaland, (2006) 1 SCC 496
D.A.V. College, Jalandhar v. State of Punjab, (1971) 2 SCC 261 : AIR 1971 9
SC 1731
Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114 1
Dwarkadas v. Sholapur Mills, AIR 1954 SC 119 6
Faridabad CT. Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services, (1997) 7 SCC 752 3
Francis Coralie v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608 12, 7
G Sundarajan v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 620. 13
G.K. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 375 3
Gita Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, (1999) 2 SCC 228 : AIR 1999 SC 6
1149
Gopi Chand v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1959 SC 609 4
Gramophone Co of India v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey, (1984) 2 SCC 534 : 13
AIR 1984 SC 667
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 SCC 1 15

In Re Kerala Education Bill v. Unknown, AIR 1958 SC 956 12, 9
In Re Special Courts Bill, 1978 v. Unknown, (1979) 1 SCC 380. 5
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 Supp SCC 1 : AIR 1975 SC 2299 14
Issac Isangha Musumba v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 15 SCC 357. 7
Jagdev Singh Sidhanti v. Pratap Singh Daulta, AIR 1965 SC 183 9
Jagdish Pandey v. Chancellor, Bihar University, AIR 1968 SC 353 4
Jalan Trading Co. (P) Ltd. v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha, (1967) 1 SCR 15 15
Jalia Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1976) 1 SCC 602 5
K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481 1
K.S. Puttuswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1. 6
Kamana v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (1999) F.C.J. 11
No. 1695.
Kangshari Haldar v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1960 SC 457 4
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 14
Khudiram Chakma v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 615 1
Kochuni K.K. v. Sate of Madras, AIR 1960 SC 1080 7
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 : AIR 1997 SC 1125 15
Laxmi Khandsari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1981) 2 SCC 600 4
Louis De Raedt v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 554 6, 12
M. Ismail Faruqui (Dr.) v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 36 15
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 : AIR 1978 SC 597 6, 7, 8
Minerva Mills Limited v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 591 12, 7
Namit Sharma v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 745 (800) 14
Naresh v. State of Maharashtra, 1966 3 SCR 744 6
Natural Resources Allocations, in re Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 12
10 SCC 1.
Natural Resources Allocations, in re Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 3
10 SCC 1
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 791. 16
Parents' Association v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 657. 5
People's Union For Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2004) 2 SCC 476 3
People's Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 433 12
Peoples' Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301 : AIR 12, 7
1997 SC 568
Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2005) 3 SCC 551 14
R. v. Kensington IT Commissioner, (1917) 1 KB 486 1
Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 84 1
Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana, AIR 1950 SC 163 1
RT (Zimbabwe) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (2012) 11
UKSC 38
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1 5
Salil Bali v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 705. 12
Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 8 SCC 191 : AIR 1997 SC 6
3297
Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665 : AIR 2005 SC 8, 7
2920
Sarup Singh Sardar v. State of Punjab, AIR 1959 SC 860 6
Shantisar Builders v. Narayan Khimlal Totame, (1990) 1 SCC 520 : AIR 7, 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 SC 630
Sidrajbhai Sabhai v. Syaye of Gujarat, AIR 1963 SC 540 9
St. Xavier's College v. State of Gujarat, (1974) 1 SCC 717 : AIR 1974 SC 10
1389
State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318 16
State of Bombay v. R.M.D.C., AIR 1958 SC 699 6
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75 5
State of West Bengal v. Committee For Protection of Democratic Rights, 14
(2010) 3 SCC 571
State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Limited, (2004) 10 SCC 201. 13
Sunil Poddar v. UBI, (2008) 2 SCC 326 1
Suresh Chandra Chimanlal Shah v. Union of India, AIR 1975 Delhi 168 9
Swaroop Vegetables Products Industries v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1983) 4 4
SCC 24 : AIR 1984 SC 20
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Kerala, (2002) 8 SCC 481 : AIR 2003 SC 3
355
Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, (1969) 1 SCC 110. 1
TMA Pai Foundation & Ors v. State of Karnataka & Ors, (2002) 8 SCC 481 : 9
AIR 2003 SC 355
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647 13
Vincent v. Union of India, (1987) 2 SCC 165 : AIR 1987 SC 990. 7
Vishaka & Ors v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241 : AIR 1997 SC 13
3011.
Waman Rao v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 362 : AIR 1981 SC 271 15
STATUTES REFERED
1. Constitution of India, 1950
2. Foreigner's Act, 1946
3. Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam Act), 1950
4. Indian Citizenship Act, 1955
5. Passport Act, 1967
6. Vienna Convention
7. Statute of International Court of Justice
BOOKS REFERRED
1. D.D. Basu, Shorter Constitution of India (Volume 1, 1st Edition: 2011)
2. D.D. Basu, Shorter Constitution of India (Volume 2, 1st edition: 2011)
3. D.D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India: Articles 13 and 14
4. H.M Seervai, Constitutional Law of India (Volume 1, 4th Edition: 2017)
5. H.M Seervai, Constitutional Law of India (Volume 1, 4th Edition: 2017)
6. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (8th Edition: 2018)
7. P.M. Bakshi, Commentary on the Constitution of India (2nd Edition: 2014)
8. Sanjay S. Singh, Sathya Narayan, Basic Structure Constitutionalism: Revisiting
Kesavananda Bharti (Eastern Book Company: 2011 Edition)
9. Article 37, the Constitution of India; Austin Granville, The Indian Constitution:
Corner Stone of a Nation, 50 (2 ed., 1967)
10. UN General Assembly, Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July
1951, United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 189, P. 137
REPORTS, ARTICLES AND DEBATES REFERRED
1. Harish Salve, Solicitor Geenral of India, General Submissions on the
Interpretation of Articles 25 https://www.ebc-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
india.com/lawyer/sp_case_comment/submissions_1.htm, last seen on

27/02/2019
2. Report of the Joint Committee on the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016, Lok
Sabha, Sess. 16.
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS REFERRED
1. International Covenant on Civil And Political Rights
2. Assam Accord, 1985
3. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
4. Conclusions Adopted by the Executive Committee on the International Protection
of Refugees, 1975-2009, The UN Refugee Agency, Official Record, 22-33, (Dec
2009) https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4b28bf1f2.pdf, last seen on 27/02/2019.
5. Convention Relating to the Statute of Refugees
6. Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon'ble Court has Jurisdiction to hear the instant matter under Art. 32 of the
Constitution of Pochinki, 1950.
Art. 32 of the Constitution of Pochinki reads as:
Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(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
THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND ARGUMENTS IN THE
I NSTANT CASE.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Background: Gatka and Mylta were once a part of the pluralistic and multi-cultural
country of Pochinki, but later separated in 1947, on the basis of religion. Before
partition, the population of Pochinki comprised of: Ralivs (67%), Galivs (30%), Tsalivs
(2%) and the remaining 1% of was that of other religious minorities. The Galivs were
mainly concentrated in the western and eastern parts of Pre-Partition Pochinki. After
partition, Gatka and Mylta became Galiv majority states. The other religious groups in
these two newly formed countries were persecuted and as a result of which a huge
number of minorities from these countries migrated to Pochinki. The government of
post-partition Pochinki provided citizenship to such migrants. Thus 4 years after
partition the demography of Pochinki was:- Ralivs (90%), Galivs(5%) and Tsalivs and
other minorities(5%). Kameshki is a state located in the North Eastern part of Pochinki
whose culture, language, tribes etcetera re slightly different from other parts of
Pochinki. The state shares the longest border with Mylta.
Kameshki Accord: In 1978, the youth of Kameshki started an agitation against the
illegal migrants who came from Mylta. In 1985, the agitation culminated into the
Kameshki Accord of 1985 that was signed between the representatives of the
Government of Pochinki and leaders of the Kameshki Agitation which accepted that
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24th March, 1971 as the date after which anyone who came to Kameshki would not be
considered to be eligible for citizenship of Pochinki and would have to be deported
back to Mylta. Whereas, influx of immigrants continued in Kameshki from Mylta
without following the procedure established by law.
Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016: In 2016, a bill named Citizenship
(Amendment) Bill, 2016 was passed in both the houses of the parliament and whose
purpose was to provide Citizenship to the non-Galivs who came to Pochinki fleeing
religious persecution from Gatka and Mylta and were residing in different parts of
Pochinki.
Present Petition: On 30th July, 2017, All Kameshki Student's Union approached
the Supreme Court stating that legalising illegal immigrants would jeopardise
Kameshki, hence declare the Act as constitutionally invalid and thus scrap it.
The present submission is in response to this petition.
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE I
WHETHER THE PUBLIC I NTEREST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE HON'BLE SUPREME
COURT OF POCHINKI?
ISSUE II
WHETHER THE CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?
ISSUE III
WHETHER THE UNION GOVERNMENT OF POCHINKI CAN DEPORT THE I MMIGRANTS IN POCHINKI TO
MYLTA AND GATKA?
ISSUE IV
WHETHER THE CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 IS IN VIOLATION OF THE BASIC
STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THEREFORE LIABLE TO BE STRUCK DOWN AS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether the Public Interest Litigation is maintainable in the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of Pochinki?
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the present Public
Interest Litigation is not maintainable because the petitioner has not exhausted all the
other alternative remedies [1.1] and there is no infringement of Fundamental Rights
in the present case. [1.2]
2. Whether the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2016 is constitutionally valid?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the Citizenship (Amendment)
Act, 2017 is constitutional insofar as it comes to granting immigrants citizenship,
because the impugned Act does not violate Article 14[2.1] as it passes the test of
reasonability [2.1.1] which includes that the impugned act is based on intelligible
differentia [a] and there is a rational nexus with the objective sought [b] Further, the
act is in consonance with Article 29 of the Constitution[2.2] as the natives of
Kameshki cannot be called minorities [2.2.1] and moreover, there is no obligation on
the state to protect the minorities [2.2.2]. The impugned Act is not violative of Article
21 [2.3] as there is no overt act of depriving the natives of Kameshki [2.3.1] the
immigrants have accrued Right to Life [2.3.2] and the Parliament followed the due
procedure established to pass the Act.
3. Whether the Union Government of Pochinki can deport the immigrants in
Kameshki to Mylta and Gatka?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the Citizenship (Amendment
Act, 2017 is constitutional because the State is duty bound to protect the right to life
of immigrants which has been expansively interpreted in recent years. Pochinki is also
bound to follow and honour its international obligations whereby it cannot render
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
innocent immigrants stateless merely due to the supposed lack of citizenship.

Therefore, it is humbly submitted that, the Union Government of Pochinki cannot
deport the immigrants from Kameshki, back to their homeland in Mylta and Gatka. It
is contended that the immigrants in Kameshki are refugees. [3.1] The immigrants
enjoy protection under Domestic Law [3.2] as well as International Law. [3.3]
1. Whether the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2016 is in violation of the Basic
Structure of the Constitution and therefore liable to be struck down as
unconstitutional?
The respondent humbly submits that apart from abiding by the fundamental rights,
the Act is also in consonance of the Basic Structure of the Constitution which renders
the Act constitutional. The Amendment is in consonance with Law as it does not
violate the fundamental rights mentioned in Part III [3.1], promote the values of
Secularism [3.2] and because of the growing need for transformative
constitutionalism. [3.3]
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE HON'BLE
COURT
1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the present
petition filed before the bench is not maintainable. The maintainability of a petition
under Article 32 depends on the facts of each case.1 The question as to when the
Supreme Court should entertain the claim depends on the nature of the fundamental
right alleged to have been infringed and the remedy claimed.2 In the present case, the
petition is not maintainable on the grounds that the Petitioner has not exhausted
Alternative Remedies [1.1] and there is no infringement of Fundamental Rights. [1.2]
1.1. THE PETITIONER HAS NOT EXHAUSTED ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES
2. The power to grant writs under Article 32 is a discretionary power vested in the
hands on this Hon'ble Court.3 It is a well settled proposition of law that existence of an
alternative adequate remedy is a factor taken into consideration in a writ petition.4 The
same has been upheld in a plethora of judgments rendered by this Hon'ble Court. In
the instant case, the Petitioner has approached the Honorable Apex Court directly
under an Article 32 petition in spite of having an alternative remedy available in Article
226 of the Constitution.
3. Article 226 states that “notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court
shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises
jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any
Government within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the
nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo-Warranto and Certiorari, or any
of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by part - III and for any
other purpose”. It is pertinent to point out that Article 226 has a non-obstante clause
with respect to Article 32. Furthermore, the Article 226 empowers the High Courts of
relevant jurisdictions to entertain writs as and when requires.
4. It was held by the Hon'ble Court in the case of Confederation of All Nagaland
State Services Employees' Assn. v. State of Nagaland5 , that “the writ petitions filed by
the Confederation of All Nagaland State Services Employees' Association as also by the
Government of Nagaland should be agitated at the first instance before the High Court
of Judicature at Guwahati in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The pleadings of the parties, which are complete, may be sent to the High Court
which, upon receipt, shall be registered as writ petitions”.
5. In the instant case, All Kameshki Students' Union has directly approached the
Supreme Court, whereas the petitioner should have moved to the High Court under
Article 226 failing which this Hon'ble Court may have been moved under Article 136 of
the Constitution. This Hon'ble Court, must therefore, exercise its discretion to quash
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the instant writ on grounds of non-maintainability.

1.2. THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
6. It is submitted that the instant case does not warrant an Article 32 petition since
there is no legitimate cause of action for the petitioners to move this Hon'ble Court.
Article 32(1) confers upon individuals “the right to move the Supreme Court by
appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is
guaranteed”.6 In the instant case, there are no violations of fundamental rights
contrary to the claims of the petitioners. The same has been substantiated in issues II
and IV respectively.7
7. The petitioner is therefore not entitled to move this Hon'ble Court and the
petition is liable to be set aside on the grounds that the petition is not maintainable as
there is no cause of action as mentioned above.
2. THAT THE CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT , 2017 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID
8. It is most humbly submitted that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2017 is
wholly constitutional. The impugned Act does not violate the fundamental rights of the
petitioners, namely Article 14 [2.1] Article 21 [2.2] and Article 29 [2.3] and thus
stands the test of Article 13. Further, The Parliament is vested with the power to
amend laws relating to citizenship under Article 11 of the Constitution of Pochinki, and
it is presumed that it would not act arbitrarily in the exercise of its power.8
9. It is also contended that there is always an initial presumption of validity of a
law9 and that due importance should be given to the legislative intent while deciding
the constitutionality of a provision.10
2.1. THE IMPUGNED ACT DOES NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 14
10. It is humbly submitted that every person is entitled to equality before law and
the equal protection of the laws,11 irrespective of whether he is a citizen or non-
citizen.12 Laws apply equally to all persons equally circumstanced.13 However, the
Courts in a number of judgements have held that a classification among persons is
permissible only if it is reasonable.14
2.1.1. The Impugned Act passes the twin test of Reasonableness
11. For any legislation to be reasonable, it should follow the following two points:
“(1) It should not be arbitrary, artificial or 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.
(2) The differentia adopted as the basis of classification must have a rational or
reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the statute in
question.”15
12. It is submitted that the legislature would adopt a reasonable classification to
achieve some specific ends.16 This Hon'ble Court has repeatedly held that along with
the test of a nexus and intelligible differentia, the policy underlying the statute must
also be ascertained.17 The Court may refer to relevant material like objects and reasons
appended in the Bill, parliamentary debates, background circumstances leading to
passage of the Act, etcetera.18 Furthermore, various classifications have been upheld
as constitutional,19 if there is a reasonable basis underlying the classification.20
1. The Impugned Act is based on Intelligible Differentia
13. If the law in question is based on rational classification, it is not regarded as
discriminatory.21 After partition of Pochinki, Galtka and Mylta became Galiv majority
states.22 Ralivs, Tsalivs and other religious groups were reduced to minorities in these
states. People belonging to these religious minority groups faced religious persecution,
which continued even long after the Partition. They fled from Gatka and Mylta, due to
such persecution, and migrated and settled in different parts of Pochinki, which is a
secular state. However, due to high population density of Mylta, Galivs too kept on
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
migrating to Pochinki, and settling in Kameshki.23 The Citizenship (Amendment) Act,

2017, creates a distinction between the migrants from minorities, who settled in
Pochinki escaping religious persecution in Gatka and Mylta, and the Galivs migrants,
who resided in Pochinki due to high population density in these countries. It is humbly
submitted before the Hon'ble Court that such a classification is reasonable and
amounts to intelligible differentia.24 It is also submitted that the abovementioned
classification is based on historical background of a region was upheld as being
reasonable.25
2. The Differentia adopted as the basis of classification has a Rational Nexus
with the Object Sought to be Achieved
14. The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the Act are distinct
things and there must be a nexus between them.26 To attract Article 14, it is
necessary to show that the selection or differentiation rests on a rational basis with
regards to the object which the Legislature has in view in while making the law in
question.27 According to the Report of the Joint Committee on the Citizenship
(Amendment) Bill, 201628 ; “The aim of the amendment is to redress the problems
faced by the members of minority communities from Gatka and Mylta, who are
compelled to seek shelter in Pochinki due to religious persecution. Currently they are
recognised as illegal migrants and are deprived of even basic amenities necessary for
their well-being. Hence, It is necessary to exempt them from being treated as ‘illegal
migrants’ in order to be considered for naturalisation under Section 6 read with the
Third Schedule of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The amendment has the object to
facilitate all the minority communities being persecuted in Gatka and Mylta on the
basis of their religion, without any discrimination.”
15. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the said Act does uphold the test of
reasonable classification and nexus with the object of the Act, and does not violate the
spirit of Article 14.29
2.2. THE IMPUGNED ACT IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 21
16. Article 21 lays down that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to procedure established by law. This procedure cannot be
fanciful and arbitrary, but must answer the test of reasonableness in order to satisfy
the requirements of Article 21.30
2.2.1. There is no Overt Act depriving the Petitioner's Right to Life.
17. Article 21, being an inherently natural right,31 is applicable to citizens as well as
foreigners.32 It is humbly submitted that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2017 is
constitutional and does not violate Article 21. It has been laid down that the law could
be declared unconstitutional only when it has a “direct and inevitable effect”33 on the
fundamental rights and not merely an incidental or indirect effect on it.34 In the
landmark case of Samantha v. State of Andhra Pradesh,35 this Hon'ble Court made a
distinction between direct, overt and tangible acts of the State which can threaten and
deprive one of the right to life, and vague or remote acts which merely threaten the
quality of life. It is humbly submitted that in light of the aforementioned observation,
there is no overt action of the respondent which violates the rights of the petitioner.
18. It is imperative to look at the ‘pith and ‘substance’36 or ‘the true character and
nature’37 of the legislation to determine its true scope. It is necessary to examine the
provision as a whole to ascertain its true nature and character. The said Act plainly
provides conditions and procedure for citizenship of Pochinki. It must be considered, in
this regard, that the legislative intent behind the enactment is to redress the problems
faced by the members of minority communities from Gatka and Mylta, who are
compelled to seek shelter in Pochinki due to religious persecution.38 Since the
legislative intent is clearly out of judicial scrutiny39 but is a relevant factor to access
the constitutionality of a provision,40 and the intention behind the enactment is to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ensure that these religious minority communities are considered for naturalisation so
that they can enjoy the basic amenities necessary for their well-being,41 it is
submitted that the impugned Act does not violate Article 21.
2.2.2. The Immigrants Possess the Accrued Right to Life
19. Article 21 is broad enough to cover both citizens of Pochinki and foreigners42 ,
which includes immigrants. Thus, it becomes the duty of the State to protect the
liberty of such foreigners and ensure that this liberty is deprived only in accordance
with the procedure established by law-being just, fair and reasonable.43 Foreigners
entering a territory are subsequently entitled to certain rights with are essential to the
enjoyment of ordinary private life.44
20. This Hon'ble Court has implied a whole bundle of human rights out of Article 21
by interpreting it along with the Directive Principles of State Policy,45 and international
charters on Human Rights.46 It encompasses the right to live with dignity,47 right to
food, water and decent environment,48 right to livelihood,49 shelter,50 good health,51
etc.
21. Attacks against the Myltan Ralivs residing in Kameshki52 are an infringement of
their rights under Article 21. Further, if these illegal migrants were to be deported
without so much as giving them a notice or a fair hearing, elements of due process,53
it would be arbitrary and violative of Article 21. Although the citizens of Pochinki also
enjoy fundamental rights, one competing claim for fundamental right cannot always
be made to yield to another,54 and thus no hierarchy can be established between the
two conflicting rights.
22. It is also submitted that these foreigners, who have been migrating to Pochinki
since the Partition in 1947, and even after the fixed date of 24th March, 1971, have
acquired vested fundamental rights by virtue of their stay in Pochinki for almost 50
years. These cannot be taken away from them, and hence possess accrued rights of
Pochinki.
2.2.3. That the Parliament followed Due Procedure
23. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,55 this Hon'ble Court observed that the
procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness.
Submitting but not conceding, that the fundamental rights of the people of Pochinki
are being affected, it is humbly submitted that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act,
2017 is a valid law made by the legislature following a due process.56 The procedure of
making the law was fair, just and reasonable.57
24. The impugned Act has been enacted with full legislative competency. The
constitutional scheme of Chapter II gives the Parliament an unfettered power to make
provisions as to the acquisition and termination of fundamental rights. Article 11 of
the Constitution provides that nothing in the chapter should derogate the Parliament's
power to make any provision with respect to regulating the citizenship status of the
citizens.
25. It is most humbly submitted that The Union Government of Pochinki is not
bound by law to abide by the provisions of the Kameshki Accord. Article 13 of the
Constitution of Pochinki states that law includes any ordinance, order, bye law, rule,
regulation, notification , custom or usages having in the territory of Pochinki the force
of law. Hence, it is submitted that an agreement or memorandum of settlement
cannot be included under the purview of law. Furthermore, the Kameshki Accord fixes
the reference date for granting citizenship to migrants entering Kameshki as 24th
March 1971, which is different from the reference date for the rest of Pochinki.58 It is
humbly submitted that this provision creates an unreasonable time based and
geographical classification respectively, and thus the Accord itself is unconstitutional
so far under Article 14.59 Thus, it is submitted that although the Kameshki Accord was
signed as a peaceful settlement between the Government of Pochinki and the leaders
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of the Kameshki Agitation in 198560 , the legislature is not duty bound by its
provisions. It is wholly empowered to create laws regulating citizenship under Article
11 in Part II of the Constitution of Pochinki.
2.3. THE IMPUGNED ACT DOES NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 29
26. Article 29(1) grants rights to preserve the ‘language, script or culture’ to any
section of citizens residing in the territory of Pochinki.61
2.3.1. The Natives of Kameshki are not a ‘Minority’ under Article 29(1).
27. It is humbly submitted that The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2017 does not
violate Article 29(1) of the Constitution of Pochinki. Article 29(1), an absolute right,62
is available only to minorities. Only minorities possessing a specific language, script or
culture which distinguishes them from the other sections of the population are
recognised to attract Article 29(1).63 In the instant case, the culture and language of
the state of Kameshki is different from that of the other parts of Pochinki.64 However,
in a number of cases this Hon'ble Court has held that since the reorganisation of
States in Pochinki was on linguistic lines, the unit for determining a linguistic minority
will be the State and not the whole of India.65
28. It is also submitted that this Hon'ble Court In Re Kerala Education Bill66 held
that a minority means a community which is numerically less that 50 percent of the
total population. Following the dicta of this Court, it is humbly submitted that the
entire population of Kameshki cannot be considered as a ‘minority’ for it is not a
specific percentage of the state's population, but is rather the entire population itself.
Thus, the natives of Kameshki are not entitled to any protection under Article 29(1).
2.3.2. There is no obligation on the State to protect Minorities
29. Submitting, but not conceding, that the indigenous people of Kameshki are
entitled to protection under article 29(1), it is submitted that the right is merely
protective in nature. It only confers upon such minorities the right to conserve their
own culture67 but does not create any such positive obligation on the State to conserve
these rights.68 The State must only make sure that there is no such action which is
specifically designed to curtail this right.69 In the instant case, The Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 2017 does not take away or curtail the right of the minorities to
conserve their language or practice their culture. Rather, it has been enacted to help
and grant citizenship to the minority communities, Ralivs and Tsalivs, from Gatka and
Mylta, who are escaping religious persecution in their own countries. Therefore, The
Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2017 cannot be considered violative of Article 29(1).
3. THAT THE UNION GOVERNMENT CANNOT DEPORT THE IMMIGRANTS WHO CAME TO
POCHINKI FROM MYLTA AND GATKA
30. It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that every person has the
Right to seek and enjoy in other countries' asylum from persecution.70 The Union
Government of Pochinki cannot deport Ralivs, Tsalivs and members of other religious
minority groups coming from Gatka and Mylta, under the proviso to Section 2 of the
Immigrants (Expulsion From Assam) Act, 195071 , which states that the Central
Government cannot remove any person who has left his place of residence and settled
in Kameshki on account of civil disturbances or fear of such disturbances. It is further
submitted that these immigrants are recognised as refugees, [3.1] and enjoy
protection under the Constitution [3.2] and through Pochinki's International
obligations. [3.3]
3.1. THE SAID IMMIGRANTS ARE REFUGEES
31. It is humbly submitted that the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
defines a refugee as a person who, “owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for
reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or
political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to
such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as
a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”72
32. According to the abovementioned definition, the fear of persecution must be
“well-founded”. Thus the term “well-founded fear” contains a subjective and an
objective element73 - fear is a subjective matter, however, whether the fear of
persecution is “well-founded” is an objective matter.74
33. It is therefore submitted that the frame of mind of a person must be
accompanied by an objective situation. The courts have repeatedly stated that in order
to be recognised as a refugee both the subjective and objective elements need to be
met.75 The fear must also be due to a reason stated by the Convention.76
34. In the instant case, the non-Galiv minority communities from Gatka and Mylta
migrated to Pochinki due to religious persecution. Even the Ralivs who stayed back in
Mylta after the partition hoping that the situation will change, faced even worse forms
of religious persecution and thus left Mylta and settled in Kameshki.77 Thus, it is
humbly submitted that these immigrants qualify as refugees.
3.2. THE SAID IMMIGRANTS ENJOY PROTECTION UNDER THE DOMESTIC LAW.
35. It is humbly submitted that non-citizens are entitled to some fundamental
rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of Pochinki.78 It is therefore submitted
that the immigrants from Gatka and Mylta enjoy the right to equal protection of law
under Article 14;79 and the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article
21.80 This Hon'ble Court has implied a whole bundle of human rights out of Article 21
by interpreting it along with the Directive Principles of State Policy,81 and international
charters on Human Rights.82 It encompasses the right to live with dignity,83 right to
food, water and decent environment,84 right to livelihood,85 shelter,86 good health,87
etcetera. Thus, the State is bound to protect their life and liberty against attacks by
the indigenous people, and cannot permit anyone to threaten them to leave the
state.88
3.3. THE SAID IMMIGRANTS ENJOY PROTECTION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
36. The Art 51(c) of the Constitution directs the state to ‘endeavour’ to inter alia,
‘foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized
peoples with the another’. The DPSPs are fundamental in the governance of the
country.89 They have to be harmoniously interpreted with the fundamental rights.90
The Courts have sought to interpret various judgments of foreign courts by way of
internalizing them in domestic law and test the constitutionality of the laws in
juxtaposition with those treaties.91 They even direct the Parliament to give effect to
treaties they are party to.92 Treaties, to which India is not a party to, have also been
recognized by the Courts.93 As with treaties, the courts also appear to be inclined to
incorporate international customary law.94
37. It is most humbly submitted that Pochinki cannot deport refugees because it
follows the policy of non-refoulment.95 In the celebrated case of Vishaka & Ors. v.
State of Rajasthan,96 this Hon'ble Court had rendered the assistance of International
Conventions and Statutes in the absence of domestic law. Here too, the Court also
reiterated that International law and Conventions can be relied upon so long as they
do nor contravene any domestic law or violate the spirit of the Constitution.
38. Although Pochinki has no domestic law relating to refugees, it must incorporate
provisions of International Conventions ratified by it.97 Article 7 of the International
Convenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) contains the principle of non-
refoulment, which should be followed.98
39. It is further submitted that non-refoulment has acquired the status of
customary international law.99 It is thus a “general practice which has been accepted
as law by the states,”100 regardless of whether they have codified these laws
domestically or through treaties. In recent times, it has also acquired the nature of jus
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cogens,101 and thus cannot be derogated.102

In light of the abovementioned observations, Pochinki cannot deport the
immigrants coming from Gatka and Mylta.
4. THAT THE CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT , 2017 FOLLOWS THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF
THE CONSTITUTION, AND IS HENCE CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID
40. The Parliament does not have the power to damage or destroy the basic
structure or basic features of the Constitution.103 It is most humbly submitted that the
impugned Act, by virtue of upholding Articles 14, 21 and 29(1) of the Constitution and
the constitutionally enshrined principle of secularism, follow the Basic Structure of the
Constitution and hence must be declared constitutional.
4.1. THE IMPUGNED ACT IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
41. It is humbly submitted that the supremacy of the Constitution mandates all
constitutional bodies to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Part III of the
Constitution contains the Fundamental rights and thus protects substantive as well as
procedural rights.104 These fundamental rights uphold dignity of every individual.105 It
is humbly submitted that any law made by the Parliament must be consistent with the
fundamental rights in order to be constitutional.106 It is also submitted that the
fundamental rights mentioned in Part III are a part of the basic structure of the
Constitution of Pochinki107 . Therefore any law that abrogates or abridges such rights
would be held as violative of the doctrine of basic structure.108
42. Thus, it is most humbly submitted that, in the instant case, the Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 2017, which follows Article 14, 21 and 29 of the Constitution of
Pochinki is constitutionally valid and abides by the basic structure of the Constitution.
4.2. THE IMPUGNED ACT PROMOTES SECULARISM
43. The word ‘secularism’ was incorporated in the Preamble to the Constitution
through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment and serves as the guiding light to
interpreting the Constitution. It is further submitted that in the landmark case of S.R.
Bommai v. Union of India,109 secularism was held to be a part of the basic structure of
the Constitution. Article 21 read with Articles 14 and 15 represent secularism.110
Secularism is an essential facet of the right to equality.111 The impugned act upholds
the virtues of equality by adopting a reasonable classification, not being arbitrary or
discriminatory. It is humbly submitted that the act is in concurrence with
constitutional mandate of secularism, and does not violate the basic structure of the
Constitution.
44. It is submitted that the judiciary does have the power to test the validity of
legislative acts,112 and this power of judicial review is itself part of the basic structure
of the Constitution.113 However, this Hon'ble Court has recognised and upheld the
legislative wisdom behind an act. In the case of Jalan Trading Co. (P) Ltd. v. Mill
Mazdoor Sabha,114 the Court held that the legislature may have selected a scheme to
achieve certain objectives and unless the enactment fails to satisfy the dual test of
intelligible classification and rationality, it will not be subject to judicial interference.
45. It is humbly submitted that in the instant case too, the legislative wisdom and
intent must be given due importance. As mentioned in the Joint Parliamentary
Committee for Amendment of Citizenship Act115 , the impugned act had been proposed
on extreme humanitarian grounds as the two minorities are fleeing persecution and
have no other option except coming to Pochinki. It upholds Pochinki's obligations to
provide aid to refugees, as a member of the International Community, by protecting
the minority communities Ralivs and Tsalivs citizens of Mylta were fleeing persecution
and ethnic cleansing in their own country.116 It grants them citizenship so that they
can enjoy basic rights necessary for their well-being.
46. Moreover, Pochinki has had a long history of hosting victims of persecution. In
the case of the Tibetans or that of the Tamils from Sri Lanka, Pochinki has always
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
shown humanity and generosity in opening her arms for minority people persecuted by
the majority in other nations.
47. It is further submitted that it is not for first time that the law is being sought to
be applied to the persecuted minorities trying to enter Pochinki. As early as 1950,
months after Pochinki was proclaimed a Republic, a similar law called Immigrants
(Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 was enacted to deal with the large-scale influx from
Mylta, spoke of treating those who felt persecuted be treated differently.
In light of the above observations, it is humbly submitted that the impugned Act,
does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution and must be held is
constitutional.
4.3. TRANSFORMATIVE CONSTITUTIONALISM
48. In view of the notion of transformative constitutionalism, it is humbly
submitted that the Constitution, a living document117 must also recognise the
international conventions signed by the government and ensure that its provisions are
given due importance so that changing circumstances and changing needs are
coincided with the international responsibility of a country so as to determine the
element of equality and dignity. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a violation of
fundamental rights of any natives of either Kameshki or Pochinki, for merely providing
another disadvantaged and vulnerable section of society, the right to obtain citizenship
is not violative of the right to equality or life. This is because in this competing claim
for fundamental rights, none of the two are being compromised; rather, they are being
interpreted harmoniously so as to ensure the best for both parties.118
Thus, it is humbly submitted that the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2017 is
constitutional.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, in light of the Issues raised, Authorities cited and Arguments advanced,
it is most humbly and respectfully requested that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
Pochinki be pleased to:
1. DECLARE, that the present Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable.
&
2. DECLARE, that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2017 is Constitutionally valid.
&
3. DECLARE, that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2017 is not in violation of the
Basic Structure of the Constitution and therefore constitutional.
&
4. DECLARE, that the Pochinki Government cannot deport the Immigrants in
Pochinki of Gatka and Mylta.
AND/OR
PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT IT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE BEST
I NTERESTS OF JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE RESPONDENT SHALL DUTY BOUND FOREVER PRAY.
1Assam Sanmilitia Mahasangh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 1; Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B.
Munshi, (1969) 1 SCC 110.
2 Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, (1969) 1 SCC 110; Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 84.
3K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481; Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 114; Sunil Poddar
v. Union Bank of India, (2008) 2 SCC 326; R. v. Kensington IT Commissioner, (1917) 1 KB 486; Abhudhya
Sanstha v. Union of India, (2011) 6 SCC 145
4
Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana, AIR 1950 SC 163
5
Confederation of All Nagaland State Services Employees' Assn. v. State of Nagaland, (2006) 1 SCC 496.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Article 32(1), Constitution of India.

7 Memorandum on behalf of the Respondents.
8 People's Union For Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2004) 2 SCC 476
9 G.K. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 375

10 Gita Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, (1999) 2 SCC 228 : AIR 1999 SC 1149
11 Faridabad CT. Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services, (1997) 7 SCC 752
12 Natural Resources Allocations, In Re Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1
13
Chiranjeet Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41
14
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Kerala, (2002) 8 SCC 481 : AIR 2003 SC 355
15 Laxmi Khandsari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1981) 2 SCC 600
16
Id.
17
Kangshari Haldar v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1960 SC 457
18 Jagdish Pandey v. Chancellor, Bihar University, AIR 1968 SC 353.
19 Swaroop Vegetables Products Industries v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1983) 4 SCC 24 : AIR 1984 SC 20
20
Gopi Chand v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1959 SC 609
21
Ashutish Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 34
22 Moot Proposition ¶2
23
Moot Proposition ¶4
24
Report of the Joint Committee on the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016, Lok Sabha, Sess. 16
25 Parents' Association v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 657.
26 In re Special Courts Bill, 1978 v. Unknown, (1979) 1 SCC 380.
27
Jalia Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1976) 1 SCC 602.
28
Report of the Joint Committee on the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016, Lok Sabha, Sess. 16
29 State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75.
30
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 : AIR 1978 SC 597.
31 K.S. Puttuswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
32 Louis De Raedt v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 554.
33
34
Naresh v. State of Maharashtra, 1966 3 SCR 744.
35 Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 8 SCC 191 : AIR 1997 SC 3297.
36
State of Bombay v. R.M.D.C., AIR 1958 SC 699.
37 Dwarkadas v. Sholapur Mills, AIR 1954 SC 119.
38 Report of the Joint Committee on the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016, Lok Sabha, Sess. 16.
39
Sarup Singh Sardar v. State of Punjab, AIR 1959 SC 860.
40 Gita Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, (1999) 2 SCC 228 : AIR 1999 SC 1149.
41
Report of the Joint Committee on the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016, Lok Sabha, Sess. 16.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42
43 Issac Isangha Musumba v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 15 SCC 357.
44 Sarbhananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665.
45
Minerva Mills Limited v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 591.
46 Peoples' Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301 : AIR 1997 SC 568.
47 Francis Coralie v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608.
48
Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1996) 2 SCC 549.
49
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar R. Nandkarni, (1983) 1 SCC 124 : AIR 1983 SC 109.
50
Shantisar Builders v. Narayan Khimlal Totame, (1990) 1 SCC 520 : AIR 1990 SC 630.
51
Vincent v. Union of India, (1987) 2 SCC 165 : AIR 1987 SC 990.
52
53
54
Kochuni K.K. v. Sate of Madras, AIR 1960 SC 1080.
55 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 : AIR 1978 SC 597.
56
Article 21, The Constitution of India.
57
59
D.D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, 2189 (9th ed., 2014). Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of
India, (2005) 5 SCC 665 : AIR 2005 SC 2920.
60
61 Art. 29(1), The Constitution of India; Jagdev Singh Sidhanti v. Pratap Singh Daulta, AIR 1965 SC 183.
62 Sidrajbhai Sabhai v. Syaye of Gujarat, AIR 1963 SC 540.
63
D.A.V. College, Jalandhar v. State of Punjab, (1971) 2 SCC 261 : AIR 1971 SC 1731; Suresh Chandra Chimanlal
Shah v. Union of India, AIR 1975 Delhi 168.
65
TMA Pai Foundation & Ors v. State of Karnataka & Ors, (2002) 8 SCC 481 : AIR 2003 SC 355; Bal Patil & Anr.
v. Union of India & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 690 : AIR 2005 SC 3172.
66
In Re Kerala Education Bill v. Unknown, AIR 1958 SC 956.
67 St. Xavier's College v. State of Gujarat, (1974) 1 SCC 717 : AIR 1974 SC 1389.
68
Harish Salve, Solicitor Geenral of India, General Submissions on the Interpretation of Articles 25 To 30,
http://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/sp_case_comment/submissions_1.htm, last seen on 27/02/2019
69 Id.; D.D. Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, 488 (15th ed., 2018).
70 Article 14(1), Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
71 Laws of Kameshki are para materia to the laws of Assam.
72
Article 1(a)(2), Convention Relating to the Statute of Refugees, 189 (United Nation Treaty Series)
73 UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
74Kalala v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs FCA 1595, Australia: Federal Court, 19 November
1999
75 Kamana v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (1999) F.C.J. No. 1695.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
76 RT (Zimbabwe) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (2012) UKSC 38.
77
78 Arunachal Pradesh v. Khudiram Chakma, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 615.
79 Natural Resources Allocations, In Re Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1.
80
Louis DE Raedt v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 554.
81 Minerva Mills Limited v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 591.
82 Peoples' Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301 : AIR 1997 SC 568.
83 Francis Coralie v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608.
84 Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1996) 2 SCC 549.
85 Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar R. Nandkarni, (1983) 1 SCC 124 : AIR 1983 SC 109.
86 Shantisar Builders v. Narayan Khimlal Totame, (1990) 1 SCC 520 : AIR 1990 SC 630.
87 Vincent v. Union of India, (1987) 2 SCC 165 : AIR 1987 SC 990
88 National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (1996) 4 SCC 212 : AIR 1996 SC 1239.
89Article 37, the Constitution of India; Austin Granville, The Indian Constitution: Corner Stone of a Nation, 50 (2
ed., 1967)
90 In Re Kerala Education Bill v. Unknown, AIR 1958 SC 956.
91 Salil Bali v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 705.

92 People's Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 433.
93 G Sundarajan v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 620.
94 Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647.

96
Vishaka & Ors v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241 : AIR 1997 SC 3011.
97 State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Limited, (2004) 10 SCC 201.
98
Gramophone Co of India v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey, (1984) 2 SCC 534 : AIR 1984 SC 667
99Conclusions Adopted by the Executive Committee on the International Protection of Refugees, 1975 - 2009,
The UN Refugee Agency, Official Record, 22-33, (Dec 2009) https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4b28bf1f2.pdf, last
seen on 27/02/2019.
100 Article 38(1)(b), Statue of the International Court of Justice.
101 Attorney General v. Zaoui, 1 NZLR 289.
102 Article 53, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
103 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225

104 Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2005) 3 SCC 551
105 Namit Sharma v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 745 (800)
106 Article 13(2), Constitution of India
107 I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 SCC 1
108 State of West Bengal v. Committee For Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571
109
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1
110 I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 SCC 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
111 M. Ismail Faruqui (Dr.) v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 360
112 Waman Rao v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 362 : AIR 1981 SC 271
113 L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 : AIR 1997 SC 1125
114 Jalan Trading Co. (P) Ltd. v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha, (1967) 1 SCR 15
115 Report of the Joint Committee on the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016, Lok Sabha, Sess. 16.
116
117 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 791.
118
State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318.
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.

Best Team Memorial Respondent Nlujaa Vox Anatolis National Realrishabh11 Gmailcom 20221201 131156 1 18

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Best Team Memorial Respondent Nlujaa Vox Anatolis National Realrishabh11 Gmailcom 20221201 131156 1 18

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Thursday, December 01, 2022

1st NLUJAA Vox Anatolis National Moot, 2019

In the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pochinki

I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 SCC 1 15

india.com/lawyer/sp_case_comment/submissions_1.htm, last seen on

innocent immigrants stateless merely due to the supposed lack of citizenship.

the instant writ on grounds of non-maintainability.

migrating to Pochinki, and settling in Kameshki.23 The Citizenship (Amendment) Act,

cogens,101 and thus cannot be derogated.102

6 Article 32(1), Constitution of India.

9 G.K. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 375

91 Salil Bali v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 705.

94 Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647.

103 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225

111 M. Ismail Faruqui (Dr.) v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 360

You might also like