A1

Kerala Law Academy Law College

First Moot

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF FALRES

CIVIL WRIT PETITION /2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

Bismillah Allam & Others Petitioners

Vs.
Union of Armington&Anr Respondents

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF FALRES

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 7
STATEMENT OF FACTS 8
STATEMENT OF ISSUES 10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 13
1: WHETHER ARMINGTON CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2019 VIOLATES
ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION? 13
2: WHETHER BISMILLAH ALLAM AND HIS FAMILY IS THE RIGHTFUL CITIZENS OF
ARMINGTON OR NOT? 17
3: WHETHER THE CHARGES AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT IS MAINTAINABLE OR
NOT? 22
4: WHETHER THE ARMINGTON CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2019 VIOLATES
THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF BEING A SECULAR STRUCTURE
OR NOT? 29

PRAYER 34

2
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

LISTOFABBREVIATIONS

& AND

¶ PARAGRAPH

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

ANR. ANOTHER

ART. ARTICLE

ASSN. ASSOCIATION

CONST. CONSTITUION OF ARMINGTON

CrPC CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE,

1973
HC HIGH COURT OF FALRES

HON’BLE HONOURABLE

i.e THAT IS

IBID IBIDEM

ICCPR INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON

CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

ORS OTHERS

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

SCR SUPREME COURT RECORD

SEC. SECTION

V. VERSUS

3
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen, (2017) 2 SCC 62 30

ADM Stubbing v. Shella Muthu (1972) Crl. R.P. 252 26
Asha Ranjan vs. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 397 21
Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha v. Union of India (2015) 3 SC 466 16
Assam Sanmilitia Mahasangha & Ors v. Union of India & Ors (2015) I SC 466 24
Capital and Counties Bank v. Henty & Sons, (1882) 7 A.C. 741 23
CL Sagar v. Mayawati (2003) CriLJ 690 24
Daivid John Hopkins v. Union Of India, (1997) MAD 366 14
H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi (1955) 1 SCR 1150 20
Harbhajan Singh v State of Punjab (1961) PH 215 26
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 22 28
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,(1978)SC 597 15
National Human Rights Commission vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh(1996) 1 SCC 74 21
Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha, 1959 Supp (1) SCR 806 22
Parisons Agrotech Ltd. v. Union of India (2015) 323 ELT 3 SC, SCW 4897 12
R.K Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar (1958) SC 538 11
Rajendra Vishwanath Chaudhary v. Nayantara Daurgadas Vasudeo (2011) Cr APL 316 25
Rakesh Singh v. Sonia Gandhi (2011) SCC Online All 26 19
S Khushboo v. Ksnnaiammal (2010)5 SCC 600 24
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1 28
SarbanandaSonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665 23
Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, 1962 Supp (2) SCR 496 30
State of Arunachal Pradesh vs. Khudiram Chakma1991 Supp. (1) SCC 615 21
State of Karnataka v. Praveen Bhai Thogadia (Dr.), (2004) 4 SCC 684 22, 27
West Bengal v. Anawar Ali Srakar (1952) SCR 284 11
Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. BrijmohanRamdass Mehra, (1976) 2 SCC 17 30

4
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

BOOKS

1. Ratanlal&Dhirajlal, Indian Penal Code, LexisNexis (2014).

2. K.I. Vibhute, Criminal Law, LexisNexis (2019).
3. K.D. Gaur, The Indian Penal Code, Universal Law Publishing (2013).
4. R.V. Kelkar, Criminal Procedure, Eastern Book Company (2019).
5. Avtar Singh, Principles of the Law of Evidence, Central Law Publications (2010).
6. Narender Kumar, ‗Constitution of India ‘Allahabad Law Agency 12th Ed (2014)
7. H.M. Seervai, ‗Constitutional law of India ‘Universal Book Traders., 4th Ed, (2002).
8. V.N. Shukla, ‗Constitution of India ‘s Eastern Book Company ‘11th Ed (2008).
9. MP Mallick, ‗Writs (Law and Practice) ‘Eastern Law House, Second Ed., (2008).
10. P.M. Bakshi, ‗The Constitution of India ‘Universal Law Publishing Co. Ltd, (2015).

STATUTES

1. Constitution of India, 1950

2. Indian Penal Code,1860
3. Code of Criminal Procedure,1973
4. Indian Evidence Act,1872
5. Citizenship Act, 1955

DICTIONARIES

1. Black Law ‘s Dictionary, 8thed.

2. Judicial Dictionary, J.L.P Singh & PK Majumdar, 2nded.
3. Stroud ‘s Judicial Dictionary, 4thed.
4. Lexicon Law Dictionary (1979), West group, 3rded.

5
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

WEBSITES

● www.manupatra.com
● www.scconlinne.com
● www.casemine.com
● www.cis-india.com
● www.shodhganga.com
● www.lawfinderlive.com
● www.lexology.com
● www.meity.gov.in
● www.indiankanoon.com

6
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The counsel on the behalf of the Respondent in the instant matter, hereby, humbly submits to
the Jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court of Falres under article 226 of the Constitution. This
Memorial sets forth the facts and the laws on which claims are based.

226. POWER OF HIGH COURTS TO ISSUE CERTAIN WRITS

(1) 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, prohibitions, 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

(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any
Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising
jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in
part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such
Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories

(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay
or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under
clause (1), without:

(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the
plea for such interim order; and

(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the
HighCourt for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application
to the party in whose favor such order has been made or the counsel of such party,
the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from
the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such
application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed
on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which
the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim
order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the
aid next day, stand vacated

(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the
power conferred on the Supreme court by clause (2) of Article 32

7
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKDROP

The Armington National Register, mandated by Armington Citizenship Act, 1955 (as
amended in 2003) is a register where the names of all the citizens of Armingtonwere to be
mandatorily registered. Purpose behind this act is to differentiate the Citizens from the illegal
immigrants from neighboring countries.

PUBLICATION OF UPDATED ANR (ARMINGTON NATIONAL REGISTER)

Province of Flares faces a unique problem of illegal immigrants from the neighboringcountry
of Jambia. ANR for the Province of Flares was created in the year 1950. The recent updated
list of ANR that is published for the province of Falres contained 3.1 crore names out of 3.3
crore of population, leaving out 19 Lakhs names. Now these 19 Lakhs citizens are required to
show proper documents for the verification of their citizenship or otherwise they would be sent
to concentration camps.

GOVERNMENT PASSED CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT BILL 2019

Present government of Armington passed the Armington Citizenship Amendment bill in

December 2019. Sec 2 (1) of the Armington Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 states that –

“ provided that any citizen belonging to Hindia, Keshabha, Padmabha, Veshabha, Zoarabha
and Jehowha community from Tahibic Republic of Mekimer, Republic of Jambia and Tahibic
Republic of Raminherb who entered into Armington on or before the 31st of December 2014
and who has been exempted by the central government under clause (c) of subsection (2) of
section 3 of the passport (Entry into Armington) Act, 1920 or Foreigners Act 1946 or any rule
or order made there under, shall not be treated as illegal migrants for the purpose of this act”

8
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

Government also states that the residents of Falres have to produce documents proving that
they or their families lived in the country of Armington before March 24th 1971 due to coming
of large number of illegal immigrants by illegally crossing the borders of Armington.

BISMILLAH ALAM

Bismillah Alam, grandson of Ekmuddin Alam (brother of the former president of Armington
Dara Alam (1975- 1977) also served in the National Armed Forces of Armington for 35 years
and was a war veteran, along with four other members of family (belonging to Tahibic
Community) were arrested on grounds that there name were not included in the list of ANR.

Bismillah Alam in an interview with the media house stated that this was done purposely
because they belong to a certain religious community which is Tahibas.

Because they could not present and provide proper documents which verified them as
citizens of Armington or prove that their family lived in the present address before 24th
March 1971, they were sent to concentration camps, due to which according to them they
faced humiliation and harassment by the authorities.

AUTHORITIES STATEMENT

The authorities stated that every person in the province of Falres had to provide their proper
documents for the verification of their citizenship irrespective of their social status, religious
identities or caste and that the authorities were only abiding by law.

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226

Writ Petition of Habeas Corpus was filed by Bismillah Alam via his legal representative under
article 226 in the High Court of Falres against the government on the grounds of violation of
his Fundamental Rights under article 14 and 21. Government authorities were also accused
under Wrongful Confinement u/s 343 and Defamation u/s 499 of the Union Penal Code of
Armington

9
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

The Following issues have been placed before Hon’ble High Court of Falres to
Adjudicate upon:

~ISSUE 1~

WHETHER ARMINGTON CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2019 VIOLATES ARTICLE 14

AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION?

~ISSUE 2~

WHETHER BISMILLAH ALAM AND HIS FAMILY IS THE RIGHTFUL XITIZEN OF

ARMINGTON OR NOT?

~ISSUE 3~

WHETHER THE CHARGES AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

~ISSUE 4~

WHETHER THE ARMINGTON CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT,2019 VIOLATES THE BASIC

STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF BEING A SECULAR STRUCTURE OR NOT?

10
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: WHETHER ARMINGTON CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2019

VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION?

1. It is most humbly presented before the Hon’ble Court that the Armington Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 2019 does not violates article 14 and 21 of the Constitution as the
said act is passed only after following the due procedure of law and with bona fide
intensions of the Government of Armington.
2. This act passes the twin classification test and also heads towards providing proper
recognition to the persecuted religious minorities.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER BISMILLAH ALLAM AND HIS FAMILY IS THE

RIGHTFUL CITIZENS OF ARMINGTON OR NOT?

1. Bismillah Allam and his family is not the rightful citizen of Armington as they are not
able to provide the proper documents for the verification of their citizenship.
2. Moreover, they are not eligible to seek citizenship as per sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of
Citizenship Act, 1955. Furthermore, it is humbly submitted that Bismillah Alam and
his family do not satisfy the required conditions mandated by the Government.

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE CHARGES AGAINST THE GOVERNEMENT IS

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

1. Charges against the Government levied by the petitioners are not maintainable. The
act passed by the Government is not defamatory as it didn’t fulfill any of the
essentials of Section 499 also it is submitted that the lawful arrest which was under
the due process of law was referred as wrongful confinement arbitrarily.
2. Moreover, it is humbly submitted that the Amendment act is passed in good faith and
with bonafide intentions and nowhere confines anyone in the circumscribing limits.

11
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE ARMINGTON CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT,

2019 VIOLATES THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
BEING A SECULAR STRUCTURE OR NOT?

1. The Armington citizenship (amendment) act,2019 does not violate any secular
structure and the subsequent basic structure doctrine of the constitution in fact it
upholds the secular structure by giving the persecuted minorities of neighboring
states a route to citizenship
2. It is submitted that the act lays an intelligible criterion to classify and support the
persecuted minorities of neighboring states and it is in consonance with the
prevailing statutes and does not discriminate on the basis of religion.

12
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWTH:

ISSUE 1: WHETHER ARMINGTON CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2019

VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION?
 1. It is most humbly presented before the Hon’ble Court that the said amendment act does not
violate the Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
1.1 Article 14: provides “The state shall not deny to person equality before law or equal
protection of laws within the territory of India”1 according to the definition of Article 14
CAA 2019 do not deny any person equality before law and equal protection of law.

1.1.1 PASSES THE TWIN CLASSIFICATION TEST

2. Article 14 provides a ‘twin test’ of reasonable classification2. This means that a

legislation is valid only if
(i) it differentiates or classifies on the basis of ‘intelligible differentia’ (i.e. with
clear criteria) and
(ii) this differentiation has a reasonable ‘nexus’ (connection) to the objective
sought to be achieved by the legislation.
3. Article 14 forbids the class legislation but it does not forbid reasonable
classification, however, these classifications must not be ‘arbitrary, artificial or
evasive’.
4. In the case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar3, the Supreme Court, stated
that the twin test for reasonable classification. What the court actually said was (in
the words of Justice SR Das): “Article 14 does not insist that every piece of
legislation must have universal application and it does not take away from the State
the power to classify persons for the purposes of legislation but the classification
must be rational and in order to satisfy this test (i) the classification must be made
on intelligible differentia which distinguished those that are grouped

1
INDIA CONST. art 14
2
R.K Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar (1958) SC 538, State of Bihar v. Bihar State (2007) SC 1948
3
West Bengal v. Anawar Ali Srakar (1952) SCR 284

13
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

together from others and (ii) that the differentia must have a reasonable nexus with
the object sought to be achieved by the act”
5. For classification to be reasonable it must meet two conditions and Armington
Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 meets both the foresaid conditions.
6. The persecuted religious minorities included are clearly distinguishable from the
rest of the Tahibic citizens of the three Tahibic countries covered. Thus, this
differentia is clearly related to the object of the CAA that seeks to grant such
minority citizenship rights in a secular nation which was also their logical nation
before partition took place.
7. The classification is justified as it is made on the historical grounds. It is clear from
the non-secular orientation of the three selected countries that a foresaid six
religion faces discrimination and persecution on the basis of religion in these
countries, as they follow a state religion i.e., Tahiba.
8. The rationale of not including other religious minorities from these three countries
was equally justifiable as any part of Tahibic majority being persecuted within an
officially declared Tahibic nation is an internal matter of the nation. Further, even
other Tahibic nation across the world refuse to accept such minorities so
expecting India to do so defies logic.
9. Further, in light of SCs decision in Parisons Agrotech Ltd. V. Union of India4 , it
has been argued that the power of judicial review does not extend to determining
the correctness or the appropriate expense of the state policy or brainstorming
better alternatives to such a policy, but rather, the limited purpose of judicial
review is to determine the legality/ constitutionality of the Act in question.
Therefore, the parliament is well within its rights to legislate on matters relating to
citizenship within the confines of Article 14.
10. Hence, given the paucity of resources and the apprehension of possibility of
cultural chaos, exclusion of other religious communities from the Bill's ambit
stands justified. Additionally, the second precondition under Article 14 of the
existence of “reasonable nexus” is also satisfied in the present case due to obvious
reasons.

1.1.2 SELECTION OF TAHIBIC NATIONS

4
Parisons Agrotech Ltd. v. Union of India (2015) 323 ELT 3 SC, SCW 4897

14
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

11. In Armington Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 specifically selects three countries
i.e., Tahibic Republic of Mekimer, Republic of Jambia and Tahibic Republic of
Ramingherb. All these three country’s constitutions provide for a specific state
religion. As a result, people from a foresaid six communities face persecution on the
basis of religion in these countries.
12. Some of them also have fears of persecution in their day-to-day life where rights to
practice, profess, propagate their religion has been obstructed and restricted. Many
such persons have fled to Armington to seek shelter and continued to stay in
Armington even if their travel documents have expired or they have incomplete or
no documents.
13. It remains largely uncontested that the six communities from the three countries have
been subject to human rights violation due to which they are in dire need to be given
refuge or other legal protection by other countries. Therefore, protection accorded
by the bill to the six religious communities is justified on its own thereby rendering
the Act as constitutionally valid.
14. Selection was made also with the intention of correcting historical injustice that these
communities have faced during the times of partition. Due to that tragic shuffling
people lost their lands and ancestral properties and found landed themselves in the
countries that belong to them but have turned foreign in a single day.
15. Therefore it is humbly submitted that, non-inclusion of Tahibas is not discriminatory
on any grounds as they are being provided shelter in the countries that follows state
religion and that they will not face persecution on the basis of religion unlike other
communities. The CAA 2019 reinforces the essential Indian ethos of inclusivity.
Also, Union’s motive is not to spread discrimination on the basis of caste, creed or
religion but their motive is to provide shelter to those who are actually facing
persecution on the basis of religion.

Authority of the State in Conferring Citizenship

16. It is commonly acknowledged that issues on nationality fall within the domestic
jurisdiction of States and form part of domaine réservé, whereby the State enjoys
unfettered discretionary powers.

15
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

17. This was further reiterated in the case of Daivid John Hopkins v. Union of India5,
whereby the Court held that the Government of India enjoys unbounded power to
refuse citizenship to anyone without assigning reasons whatsoever.
18. Article 11 of the constitution provides power to the Parliament to regulate the right
of citizenship by law “Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part shall
derogate from the power of Parliament to make any provision with respect to the
acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to
citizenship6. Further, it was the avowed intent of the framers of the constitution
that any specific cases of conferring citizenship to persons who were left out by the
original provisions of the constitution were to be taken up by the parliament. The
CAA is, thus, a step in that direction.

1.2 Article 21:“No person shall be deprived of life and personal liberty except according to
the procedure established by law.”7 CAA 2019 nowhere violates or deprives any person of
his life and liberty; instead, it provides recognition and protects the dignity and liberty of
the persecuted religious minorities.

1.2.1 PROPER RECOGNISTION PROVIDED

19. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that CAA 2019 nowhere violate
rights provided to an individual under Article 21 of the constitution and also do
not take away life and personal liberty of an individual instead it corrects historical
injustice and provide closure to thousands of families who suffer from persecution
on the basis of religion in the foresaid countries who follows a particular state
religion i.e., Tahiba. Certain identified persons who satisfy the prescribed criteria
are conferred citizenship status. Vestation of citizenship is different from existing
citizenship.
20. Contrary to popular perception, nothing contained in the CAA affects the
citizenship rights of the existing population of Armington. In spite of taking away
citizenship as stated by many petitioners CAA on the contrary provide citizenship
to those who face persecution and are ill-treated in the countries that are
theocratic and follows a state religion.

5
Daivid John Hopkins v. Union Of India, (1997) MAD 366
6
INDIA CONST. art 11
7
INDIA CONST. art 21

16
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

21. This act thus protects the right of life and liberty of all those people who faces
persecution in the above-mentioned theocratic nations. This act provides to all
those who face persecution in the countries which follows a state religion, a
chance to be recognized as citizens of Armington and live a life full of dignity and
liberty.

22. In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India8 Supreme Court observed that
Right to life embodied in Article 21 of the constitution, is not merely a
physical right but it also includes within its ambit, the right to live with human
dignity.
23. CAA also relaxes the residence requirements for citizenship by naturalization for
those hitherto considered illegal migrants from 11 years to 5 years. According to
Intelligence Bureau data, the immediate beneficiaries of the CAA are likely to be
around 30,000.
24. And so far Tahibas are concerned they are not being treated discriminately
instead they are provided with an opportunity to live in the countries which
follows state religion, countries in which they will not face any kind of
persecution. Hence, this amendment act nowhere violates article 14 and 21 of the
constitution of Armington.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER BISMILLAH ALLAM AND HIS FAMILY IS THE

RIGHTFUL CITIZENS OF ARMINGTON OR NOT?

25. It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that Bismillah Alam
and his family is not the rightful citizen of Armington. They were sent to the
concentration camps as they could not provide proper documents which
verified them as citizens of Armington or prove that his family lived in the
present address before 24th March 1971. There are several grounds which
prove that they are not the rightful citizens of the country.
2.1 INABILITY TO PROVIDE PROPER DOCUMENTS

17
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

8
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,(1978)SC 597

18
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

26. The SC in Assam SanmilitaMahasangha v. Union of India9observed that the

issue of citizenship be referred to a larger constitutional bench for final
determination. But in the same order, the bench also decided to commence
supervising the NRC update, on a court-determined calendar, based precisely on
the requirements under section 6A.
27. This shows that all the proceedings undertaken by the government were under
the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and hence, these are justified.
Moreover, the government gave the proper list of the documents that could be
shown to prove one’s citizenship.
28. For the update of the Armington National Register (ANR), published on August
31, 2019, the admissible documents were categorized as List A (pre- 1971) and
List B (for linkage).

29. LIST A: This document could be any one among: land records; citizenship
certificate; permanent residential certificate; refugee registration certificate;
passport; LIC; any license/certificate issued by a government authority; any
document showing service/employment under government/PSU; bank/post
office accounts; birth certificate, educational certificate, or court documents —
as long as it was issued before March 24, 1971.
30. Further, two other documents via (1) Circle Officer/GP Secretary Certificate in
respect of married women migrating after marriage (can be of any year before or
after 24th March (midnight) 1971), and (2) Ration Card issued up to the midnight
of 24th March, 1971 can be adduced as supporting documents. However, these
two documents shall be accepted only if accompanied by any one of the
documents listed above.
31. The Second requirement arises if name in any of the documents of List A is not
of the applicant himself/herself but that of an ancestor, namely, father or mother
or grandfather or grandmother or great grandfather or great grandmother (and so
on) of the applicant. In such cases, the applicant shall have to submit documents
as in List B below to establish relationship with such ancestor, i.e., father or
mother or grandfather or grandmother or great grandfather or great grandmother
etc. whose name appears in List A. Such

9
Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha v. Union of India(2015) 3 SC 466

19
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

documents shall have to be legally acceptable document which clearly proves

such relationship.

32. LIST B: The link document could be: birth certificate; land document;
board/university document; Bank/LIC/post office document; electoral roll;
ration card; circle officer/gram panchayat secretary certificate in case of married
women; or any other legally acceptable document.
33. Broadly, two documents are required. The first one needs to show that the
applicant’s parent, grandparent or ancestor was living in province of Falres in
1971 or earlier. The second document needs to show that the applicant is indeed
a descendant of the parent/ancestor named in the first document. This is called
linkage. “Basically, these link documents need to bear the name of the person’s
pre-1971 ancestor.
34. The lists of documents mentioned above are very inclusive and it would to very
easy for a legitimate citizen of the country to show these documents. There are
some baseless claims that this step of the government would be detrimental for
the people who are illiteratebut, in this case, the authorities will allow that person
to bring a witness. Also, other evidence and community verification etc. will also
be allowed. A proper procedure will be followed where no Armington citizen
would be put in undue trouble.
35. Bismillah Alam and his family is not able to produce any of the documents
mentioned above which shows that they never got the citizenship and hence are
not the rightful citizens of Armington.
2.2 CITIZEN BY NO MEANS

36. "Citizen", in relation to a country specified in the FirstSchedule, means a person

who, under the citizenship or nationalitylaw for the time being in force in that
country, is a citizen ornational of that country.
37. There are certain provisions which deals with the citizenship as mentioned in
Citizenship Act. As a matter of fact, Bismillah Alam and his family is not the
citizen under any of the provisions mentioned below
2.2.1 BY BIRTH

20
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

38. This section clearly states that person shall be a citizen of the country if he/she
is born in the territory between 26 January 1950-1 July 1987 or his parents is a
citizen of the country at the time of his birth.
39. But Bismillah Alam or his family is not able to fulfill any of the mentioned
conditions. Hence, he is not the citizen of Armington according to Section 3.
2.2.2 BY DESCENT
40. Children born overseas are eligible to become Indian citizens by descent if at
least one parent is a citizen. Individuals born before 3 September 2004 were not
required to have had their birth registered and received citizenship by descent
automatically, unless either parent was an Indian citizen by descent, in which
case registration of their birth was mandatory. Prior to 10 December 1992, only
children of Indian fathers (not mothers) were eligible for citizenship by descent.10
41. This section clearly states that in order to be a citizen of the country by descent,
the father of a person should be the citizen at the time of his birth. As far as
Bismillah Alam is concerned, there is no proof that his father was a citizen when
Bismillah was born. Hence, he and his family is not the citizen as per the
aforesaid section.
2.2.3 BY REGISTRATION
42. Citizenship by registration11.― [(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and
such other conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed, the Central
Government may, on an application made in this behalf, register as a citizen of
India any person not being an illegal migrant who is not already such citizen by
virtue of the Constitution or of any other provision of this Act.
43. There are two reasons because of which this section cannot be applied to grant
citizenship to Bismillah Alam and his family. Firstly, they are illegal migrant and
this section is not applicable on illegal migrants. Secondly, all the person seeking
citizenship under this section shall fill a registration form and there is no evidence
to support the claim that Bismillah Alam or any member of his family filled such
a form.

10
The Citizenship Act, 1955, Section 4, No. 57, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India)
11
The Citizenship Act, 1955, Section 5, No. 57, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India)
12
National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh AIR (1996) SC 1234: (1996) 1 SCC 742

21
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

44. In National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh12, it was

observed by the Supreme Court that if a person satisfies the requirements of this
section, he/she can be registered as a citizen of the country. This section can be
invoked by persons who are not the citizens of the country but are seeking
citizenship by registration.
45. Moreover, it would not be possible for them to fill such a form as they are illegal
migrants evident from the fact that they were not able to provide proper
documents. Hence, Bismillah Alam and his family is not the citizen of the
country as per section 5 of the Citizenship Act.
2.2.4 BY NATURALISATION
46. Citizenship by naturalization13.―(1) Where an application is made in the
prescribed manner by any person of full age and capacity [not being an illegal
migrant] for the grant of a certificate of naturalization to him, the Central
Government may, if satisfied that the applicant is qualified for naturalization
under the provisions of the Third Schedule, grant to him a certificate of
naturalization.
47. This section states that anyone, except an illegal migrant, can become the citizen
of the country by the process of naturalization if the central government is
satisfied about the qualification of the applicant under the provisions of Third
Schedule.
48. In Rakesh Singh v. Sonia Gandhi14, the Supreme Court observed that citizenship
by naturalization cannot be granted unless an application is made by an applicant.
In this case, citizenship was granted as per section 5 of the Citizenship Act but
not according to section 6 because no such application was made by the
applicant.
49. Hence, this method of attaining citizenship cannot be applied to Bismillah Alam
and his family because they have already been declared illegal migrant because
of their inability to provide proper documents.
50. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that Bismillah Alam and his
family is not the citizen of the country by any of the methods as explained in the
Citizenship Act, 1955.

13
The Citizenship Act, 1955, Section 6, No. 57, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India)
14
Rakesh Singh v. Sonia Gandhi (2011) SCC Online All 266

22
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE CHARGES AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT IS

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

51. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the charges against the
government are not maintainable as they have not committed Wrongful
Confinement u/s 343 and Defamation u/s 499 of the Union Penal Code of
Armington.

3.1 WRONGFUL CONFINEMENTU/S 343

Wrongful confinement for three or more days - Whoever wrongfully confines any person
for three days, or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.15

3.1.1 A LAWFUL ARREST IS DISORIENTED AS WRONGFUL

CONFINEMENT
52. A strong corrigendum is absolutely imperative from the contentions of the
Petitioner. It is humbly submitted that an arrest is being confused with wrongful
confinement in the contentions of petitioner.
53. The investigation consists of five steps, namely, proceeding to the spot,
ascertainment of facts and circumstances of the case, discovery and arrest of the
suspected offender, collection of evidence relating to the commission of the
offence.16 The authorities were working under the due process established by
law, but Bismillah Alam’s inability to prove their citizenship projected their
malaise to illegally stay in the province of Falres. Therefore, the arrest must
follow as a prerogative to the enacted Act and the subsequent facts and matter of
this particular case.
54. Moreover, it is submitted that the most crucial element of wrongful confinement
is the imposition of circumscribing limits over a person but the Bismillah Alam’s
media interview is a direct representation of the fact that he

15
IPC,1860, Sec 343, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860, (India)
16
H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi(1955) 1 SCR 1150

23
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

has been arrested as an illegal migrant but is not deprived of the fundamental
rights that is extended to noncitizens of Union of Armington.17 He gave the
interview which is the clear-cut proof that he is not confined in certain
circumscribed boundaries. Therefore, Bismillah Alam was nowhere confined
thus allegations by the petitioners stands disapproved.

3.1.2 THE PRIMACY OF PUBLIC INTEREST

55. There can be no denial of the fact that the rights of thevictims for a fair trial is an
inseparable aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution and when they assert that
right by themselvesas well as the part of the collective, the conception of public
interest gets galvanised. The accentuated public interest in suchcircumstances
has to be given primacy, for it furthers and promotes "Rule of Law".18
56. It may be clarified at once that the test ofprimacy which is based on legitimacy
and the public interest has to be adjudged on the facts of this case and hence, not
an abstract pursuance. Upon detailed scanning of facts, the competing interests
and the ultimate perception of thebalancing that would sub serve the larger public
interest and serve the majesty of rule of law. In this regard, we are remindedof
an ancient saying:
"Yadapisiddham, lokaviruddhamnaadaraniyam, naacharaniyam"
57. The aforesaid saying lays stress on public interest and its significance and
primacy over certain individual interest. It may not thus have general application,
but the purpose of referring to the same is that on certain occasions it can be
treated tobe appropriate.19
58. Therefore, the liberty and the fundamental rights of citizens and aliens are
ensured by the constitution of Armington, but not of Illegal migrants and in
the interest of the public at large, the Armington Citizenship Act (2019) passes
the test of Primacy.However, the ‘Right to Life’ and ‘Liberty’ must be and
was ensured in the case of Bismillah Alam.

17
State of Arunachal Pradesh vs. Khudiram Chakma1991 Supp. (1) SCC 615; National HumanRights
Commissionvs. State of Arunachal Pradesh(1996) 1 SCC 742
18
Asha Ranjan vs. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 397
19Ibid

24
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

3.1.3 THEMERITS OF ARREST AND MALAISE OF THE PETITIONER

59. It is most humbly presented before this court that Bismillah Alam gave an
inciteful statement on media, “They are being purposely sent because they
belong to certain religious community,”20which could possibly hinder the larger
interest of Union of Armington and its citizens and posed a major threat to
internal security of Armington. Moreover, it is clear cut contempt of the Province
of Falres and Union of Armington.
60. Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Shri Shri Krishna Sinha21, Hon’ble Court held that
adeprivation of personal liberty of any person by a Legislative Assembly of a
State inexercise of its power to punish for its contempt is according to a
procedure establishedby law and does not contravene Article 21.
61. In furtherance, The Constitution of Armington confers the right to freedom of speech to
every person throughout the territory of Armington and guarantees personal liberty
under Article 19 and Article 21. However, Bismillah Alam misused the liberty to
polarize a religious community and his proposed activities arelikely to create
disharmony and disturb the equilibrium, sacrificing public peace and tranquility.
Strongactions and more so preventive actions are essentially and vitally needed to be
taken.
62. It is respectfully submitted that, no person, however big he may assume or claim
to be, should not be allowed, irrespective of theposition he may assume or claim
to hold in public life, to either act in a manner or make speecheswhich would
destroy secularism recognized by the Constitution22
63. In Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, the Hon,ble Court clearly held that the
burden of proof would be upon the proceedee as he would be possessing the
necessary documents to show that he is a citizen not only within the meaning of
the provisions of theConstitution of India but also within the provisions of the
Citizenship Act.23
64. It is Therefore, most humbly submitted that in concurrence with the above stated
Judgment and the facts so stated, the evident inability of the Petitioner to

20
Moot Proposition
21
Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha, 1959 Supp (1) SCR 806
22
State of Karnataka v. Praveen Bhai Thogadia (Dr.), (2004) 4 SCC 684
23
Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665

25
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

provide the proof of his citizenship documents makes it distinctly clear that
Bismillah Alam is at fault and an illegal immigrant. Therefore, the
uncorroborated contentions of misrepresenting a lawful arrest into a wrongful
confinement by the petitioner stand confounded and thus, does not attract section
343 on the authorities and hence, not maintainable.

3.2 DEFAMATION—Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or

by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending
to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation
of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.24

65. There are certain essentials that need to be proved to show that the defamation
has been committed-
(i) The statement or act must be defamatory
(ii) The statement or act must refer to the plaintiff
(iii)The statement or act must be published

3.2.1GOVERNMENT’S ACT IS NOT DEFAMATORY

66. It is humbly presented before the Hon’ble Court that the statement issued and act
committed by the government of Armington is not at all defamatory, therefore it
could not fulfill the condition of first essential u/s 499.
67. Statement issued by the government is not defamatory but it well within the
confines of law. It nowhere exposes anybody to disgrace, humiliation, ridicule
or contempt.25Armington citizenship amendment act 2019 passed by the
government of Armington nowhere vanish someone’s reputation in the eyes of
right-thinking members of the society.
68. Therefore, it is submitted before the Hon’ble court that all what happened to
Bismillah Alam and others was because they could not provide proper documents
of their being citizens of the nation and Government of Armington cannot be
blamed for the same as what all government did was well within the

24
IPC.1860, Section 499, No.45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India)
25
Capital and Counties Bank v. Henty & Sons, (1882) 7 A.C. 741

26
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

procedure laid down by law of the nation and also under the supervision of the
Supreme Court as observed by the court in the case of Assam Sanmilitia
Mahasangha v. Union of India26. Hence, government cannot be held liable for
the charges of defamation levied by the petitioners.

3.2.2 THE ACT IS NOT REFERRED TO THE PLAINTIFF

69. In an action for defamation, the plaintiff has to prove that the statement of which
he complains referred to him, but in the present case, by no mean it cannot be
proved that the act refers to the petitioner.
70. This act of citizenship was passed to provide citizenship to the six persecuted
minority communities of the three selected nations that follow a state religion.
Government has said that all those who are providing proper documentation as a
proof, that they are the citizens of the nation can respectfully stay as on but those
who fail will be termed as an illegal migrant.
71. In the case of CL Sagar v. Mayawati27 it was observed by the court that the
complainant was unable to demonstrate that the statement that was said by the
party president was meant for him. So, court ruled that there was no offence
committed by the party president. This decision of the apex court clearly
mentions that if the statement or the act is not explicitly referred to the plaintiff
then it did not constitute defamation.28
72. Government has made a general statement not targeting any individual
particularly. Therefore, second essential is also not fulfilled.

3.2.3 THE ACT IS NOT PUBLISHED IN A DEFAMATORY MANNER

73. Publication means making the defamatory matter known to some person other
than the person defamed, and unless it is done, no civil action for defamation
lies.29 Communication to the plaintiff himself is not enough because defamation
is injury to the reputation and reputation consists in the estimation in which
others hold him and not a man's own opinion of himself. Government

26
Assam Sanmilitia Mahasangha&Ors v. Union of India &Ors (2015) I SC 466
27
CL Sagar v. Mayawati (2003) CriLJ 690
28
S Khushboo v. Ksnnaiammal (2010)5 SCC 600
29
In the Criminal Law of Libel in England, even publication to the person defamed will be enough, if it is likely
to provoke a breach of peace, R. v. Adams, (1888) 22 Q.B.D. 66. Sec. 505, I.P.C. makes a similar provision and
makes insult with intent to revoke breach of public peace an offence although it is not deemed to be an offence
of defamation.

27
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

has not done anything that is published and in returns defames anybody.
Government with bonafide intensions came out with a bill and got it passed in
the parliament with the due procedure laid down by the Constitution of the
country.
74. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the charge of
defamation u/s 499 against the government is not maintainable as all the
essentials of this section stands disapproved.

SECTION 499 OF THE

ARMINGTON’S CONSTITUTION LAYS DOWN
FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS

1) IMPUTATION OF TRUTH WHICH PUBLIC GOOD REQUIRES TO ME

MADE AND PUBLISHED (EXCEPTION 1)
75. The Act 2019 was passed by the government after following the procedure laid
down by the court and under the supervision of the court. Government has passed
the impugned act having bonafide intentions for the benefit of those religious
minorities who are facing persecution in the countries who follows a state
religion.
76. To qualify for this exception, the accused must demonstrate that the statement or
act he made was truthful in both substance and effect not only in part and to
prove that the act is passed for a lager public good.30
77. So both the conditions of the said exceptions are fulfilled, thus proves that the
act of the government is not defamatory.

2) CENSURE PASSED IN GOOD FAITH HAVING LAWFUL AUTHORITY

OVER ANOTHER (EXCEPTION 7)
78. It is not defamation for a person who has power over another, whether given by
law or growing out of a legitimate contract, to pass in good faith any criticism
of the other person’s behavior on issues to which such valid authority
pertains.31

30
Rajendra Vishwanath Chaudhary v. Nayantara DaurgadasVasudeo (2011) Cr APL 316

28
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT
31
ADM Stubbing v. Shella Muthu (1972) Crl. R.P. 252

29
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

79. So, in the current situation government of Armington without having any mens
rea passed the citizenship act, proving bona fide intensions of the government
of providing help and providing an opportunity to all the persecuted religious
minorities a chance to live a dignified life as provided under art 21 of the
constitution.
80. And as far as second condition of this exception is concerned of having lawful
authority then, it is clearly mentioned under article 11“Nothing in the foregoing
provisions of this Part shall derogate from the power of Parliament to make
any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and
all other matters relating to citizenship32 This article provides the government
of Armington privileged and discretionary powers to regulate laws regarding
citizenship. Hence, this exception is also justified.
3) IMPUTATION MADE IN GOOD FAITH FOR THE PROTECTION OF
OTHERS’ INTEREST (EXEPTION 9)
81. Making an imputation on the character of the other person is not defamatory if
the imputation is made in good faith to defend the interests of the person
making the imputation, or anybody else, or for the public good. This exception,
like the first exception, deals with the public good. It states that protection
needs to be provided to communications between parties that are acting in good
faith, in due course of business.
82. The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab in the case of Harbhajan Singh v State of
Punjab33 has held that a rigid test cannot be applied to determine whether good
faith exists or not. This has to be done keeping in mind the facts and
circumstances of the case which includes, the alleged malice, due care and
attention where defamation is alleged.
83. Determining whether an accused can take the plea of good faith is a question of
fact and it has to be kept in mind that there must be honesty of purpose on the
part of the accused. Under Section 52 of the IPC, due care and attention are the
prerequisites to invoking good faith. Under the ninth exception, the presence of
the same is required and it is not enough on the part of the accused that he
believed the statement to be true. It is necessary to show the rational basis for
such belief.

32
INDIA CONST. art 11
33
Harbhajan Singh v State of Punjab (1961) PH 215

30
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

84.Therefore,Government’sactof passingthecitizenshipamendmentacthas been

passed in good faith, for helping and protecting persecuted minorities.
Government was concerned about the lives of those people. Government’s act
misses the concept of mens rea thus, is made in good faith and is made for
protecting the interests of the aforesaid minority communities thus, nowhere it
can be termed as defamatory.

ISSUE 4:WHETHER THE ARMINGTON CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT,

2019 VIOLATES THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF BEING
A SECULAR STRUCTURE OR NOT?

It is most humbly presented before the Hon’ble Court that the Armington Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 2019 nowhere violates the basic structure of the constitution of being
a secular structure. This can be proved through below mentioned grounds.

• SECULARISMANDTHEBASICSTRUCTUREDOCTRINE

• Secularism is not to be confused with communal or religious concepts of an

individualor a groupofpersons. It means that the State should have no religion of
its own and no one could proclaim to make the State have one such or endeavour,
to create a theocratic State. Persons belonging to different religions live
throughout the length and breadth of the country.
• Each person, whatever is his religion, must get an assurance fromthe State that he
has the protection of law freely to profess, practice and propagate hisreligion and
freedomof conscience. Otherwise, the rule of law will be replaced by individual
perceptions of one's own presumptions of good social order.34
• It is submitted that; Religion cannot bemixed with secular activities of theState
and fundamentalism of any kind cannot be permitted to masquerade as political
philosophies to the detriment of the larger interest of society and basic
requirement of a welfare State.
• Welfare of the people is the ultimate goal of all laws and State action, andabove
allthe Constitution. They have one commonobject that is to promotethe

34
StateofKarnatakav.PraveenBhaiThogadia(Dr.),(2004)4SCC684

31
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

well-being and larger interest of the society as a whole and not of any individual
or particular groups carrying any brand names. It is inconceivable that there can
be social well-being without communal harmony, love for each other and hatred
for none. Bearing true faith and allegiance must also include upholding the
philosophy of the Constitution, or the Basic Structure Doctrine.35
89. Similarly, the act aims to take into purview the larger interests of the society and
lays an emphasis on Union of Armington as home for persecuted minorities from
neighbouring countries therefore upholding the status of Armington as a secular
and a welfare state.
90. “India is the world's most heterogeneous society with a rich heritage and its
Constitution is committed to high ideas of socialism, secularism and the integrity
of the nation”36. As is well known, several races have converged in this
subcontinent and they have carried with them their own religion on the basis of
human approaches and harmonious reconciliation of differences, usefully and
peacefully. That is how secularism has come to be treated as a part of
fundamental law, and an unalienable segment of the basic structure of the
country's Constitution.
91. Any person of any religion from any country in the world can legally travel/migrate to
Armington, satisfy the conditions mentioned in Section 6 read with the third Schedule
or Section 5 of the 1955 Act37 and become an Armington’s citizen. It is unequivocally
submitted that the act has, in no manner whatsoever, made religion a basis of
determining citizenship of a person. It is further submitted that as stated above, the
impugned act is a limited and narrowly tailored legislation, which is a manifestation of
the executive/legislative policy of the Government and the Parliament since decades.

4.2 LAYING OUT AN INTELLIGIBLE CRITERION

92. It is humbly submitted that the Armington’s Parliament has, on numerous issues,
recognised religion as a distinct criterion and made classification on the basis of
the same. The legislative recognition of religious persecution in a limited
geographical area with established non-secular states cannot be termed to be
against the concept of secularism. It is submitted that the said recognition,

35
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225
36
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1
37
The Citizenship Act, 1955, Section 5, No. 57, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India); The Citizenship Act, 1955,
Section 6, No. 57, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India)

32
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

in a different manner, resonates in legislations across the world and is in no

manner a novel or an immoral form of classification as alleged.
93. The impugned act is in the nature of a measure, thereby recognising the religious
persecution systematically faced by the classified communities in the particular
neighbouring countries is a representation of Armington’s legislative policy with
regards to relaxation of qualifications of citizenship.
94. It is submitted and highlighted that the impugned act is not violative of the basic
structure doctrine with regards to the secularism.Since, Tahibic Republic of
Mekimer, Republic of Jambia and Tahibic Republic of Ramingherb are
Theocratic states and they pose no apprehension or threat of persecution to the
citizens of Tahibic community, Therefore the Tahibic community has not been
mentioned in the act. However, the Act also takes into account under section 2(1)
of the Armington Citizenship (Amendment) Act,2019 -
“……has been exempted by the Central Government under clause (c) of sub-
section (2) of section3 of the Passport (Entry into Armington) Act, 1920 or from
the application of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 or any rule or order
made there under, shall not be treated as illegal migrant for the purposes of this
Act”.38
95. It is submitted that the impugned act is in consonance with the statutory
regime of the 1955 Act and the Foreigner Act, 1946and does not classify or
differentiate on the ground of religion rather it classifies on the ground of
“religious persecution” in countries functioning with a state religion. It is
further submitted that the recognition of religious persecution in the particular
neighbouring states, which have a specific state religion and long history of
religious persecution of minorities, is actually a reinstatement of Armington’s
ideals of secularism, equality and fraternity.
4.5 THE ACT SUCCOURS THE PERSECUTED MINORITIES FROM
NEIGHBOURING THEOCRATIC STATES
96. In the case of Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay39 a
Constitution Bench of thisCourt described secularism in article 14, 21,25, 26
and 51-A and these articles embody the principle of religious toleration that
has been the characteristic feature of Armington’s civilization from the start of

38
Moot Proposition
39
Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, 1962 Supp (2) SCR 496

33
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

history, the instances and periods when this feature was absent being merely
temporary aberrations. Besides, they serve to emphasize the secular nature of
the Armington’s democracy.
97. Solus Populi est Suprema Lex, the good of the mass of the citizens of our
country is a supreme law embedded in our Constitution and the Act aims to
extend this principle to the oppressed and ill-treated minorities of the
neighbouring states.
98. In the case of Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. BrijmohanRamdass Mehra40
it was said;Our Constitution-makers certainly intended to set up a Secular
Democratic, Republic, the binding spirit of which is summed up by the
objectives set forth in the Preamble of the Constitution. No democratic political
and social order, in which the conditions of freedom and their progressive
expansion for all make some regulation of all activities imperative, could
endure without an agreement on the basic essentials which could unite and
hold citizens together despite all the differences of religion, race, caste,
community, culture, creed and language.
99. In the case of Abhiram Singh vs C.D Commachen41 it was held that
Constitution including Articles 25, 26, 29,30, 44 and 51-A and declared that
these provisions prohibit the State from identifying with any particular
religion, sect or denomination. Drawing support from what Jurists have said
about the concept of secularism in India’s Constitution, the Court explained the
legal position thus: One thing which prominently emerges from the above
discussion on secularismunder our Constitution is that whatever the attitude of
the State towards the religions,religious sects and denominations, religion
cannot be mixed with any secular activity of the State. In fact, the
encroachment of religion into secular activities is strictly prohibited. This is
evident from the provisions of the Constitution to which we have made
reference above.42
100. It is submitted that rather than breaching any principle of “freedom of religion” the
Armington Amendment Act seeks to protect the “freedom of religion” of the
communities who have been persecuted for exactly expressing and practicing their
respective religions in the particular neighbouring countries.

40
Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. BrijmohanRamdass Mehra, (1976) 2 SCC 17
41
Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen, (2017) 2 SCC 629

34
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT
42
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1

35
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

101. It is Therefore, most humbly submitted that merely because religion is the
starting point of any classification (and not the sole basis of classification)
would not imply that such a classification falls foul of secularism. It is strongly
emphasized that Armington’s secularism is not irreligious; rather it takes
cognizance of all the persecuted minorities promotes comity and brotherhood
between all. TheAct merely prescribes qualifications for citizenship based
upon rational and reasonable classifications, and does not grant carte-blanche
citizenship to the classified communities.Therefore, in its entirety, the Act
does not desecrate the Basic structure doctrine and the secular structure of the
constitution in turn, upholds it.

36
 MEMORIALONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENT

PRAYER

In the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Counsel for the

Respondents most humbly prays that the Hon’ble High Court of Falres be pleased to

adjudge, hold and declare:

1. That Armington Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 constitutional as it does not

violate Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution
2. That Bismillah Alam and his family is not the rightful citizen of Armington.
3. That the charges of wrongful confinement and defamation against the government are
not maintainable.
4. That the Armington Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 does not violate the basic
structure ofthe Constitution of being a secular structure.

AND/OR

pass any order that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of equity, justice and good

conscience.

And for this act of kindness, the counsel for the respondent shall duty bound forever pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

-Sd-

(Counsel on behalf of the Respondents)

37