A: SU 02

SUSHANT UNIVERSITY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2021

Before,

THE APEX COURT OF ROGIANA

PETIONER AND OTHERS …………………………………………………APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ROGIANA………………………………………………………RESPONDENT

{MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT}

 SUSHANT UNIVERSITY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2021

{MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT}

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations………………………………………………………………………..2

Index of Authorities…………………………………………………………………………...3

Statement of Jurisdiction……………………………………………………………………....4

Statement of Facts……………………………………………………………………………..5

Statement of Issues…………………………………………………………………………...10

Summary of Arguments……………………………………………………………………...11

Arguments Advanced…………………………………………………………………………...12

Prayer…………………………………………………………………………………………...17
 SUSHANT UNIVERSITY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2021

{MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT}

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

NO. ABBREVIATION MEANING

01. CAA CITIZENSHIP

AMMENDMENT ACT

02. NRC NATIONAL REGISTER OF

CITIZENS

03. ORS. OTHERS

04. V. VERSUS

05. & AND

06. Hon’ble HONOURABLE

 SUSHANT UNIVERSITY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2021

{MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT}

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

1. THE CONSTITUTION OF ROGIANA (1950)

2. CITIZENSHIP ACT, 1955
3. CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT, 1985 {52ND AMENDMENT}
4. CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 {74TH AMENDMENT}
5. CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT, 2003
6. CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT, 2005
7. CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT, 2015
8. CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT, 2019
9. FOREIGNERS ACT, 1946
10. Foreigners (Amendment) Order, 2015 {issued under the Foreigners Act, 1946}
11. PASSPORT (ENTRY INTO ROGIANA) A CT, 1920
12. PASSPORT (ENTRY INTO ROGIANA) RULES, 1950
13. PASSPORT (ENTRY INTO INDIA) AMENDMENT RULES, 2016
14. SANDESH EASTERN FRONTIER REGULATION, 1873

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

1. 1951 UN REFUGEE CONVENTION

2. 1967 PROTOCOL RELATING TO REFUGEES
 SUSHANT UNIVERSITY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2021

{MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT}

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner humbly submits to the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Apex Court of Rogiana, under
Article 1311 of the Constitution of Rogiana. The memorandum for Petitioner in the matter of
Petitioners & Ors.v. The Union of Rogiana set forth the Facts, Contentions and Arguments present
in the case.

1
ARTICLE 131. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME C OURT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
C ONSTITUTION , THE SUPREME C OURT SHALL, TO THE EXCLUSION OF ANY OTHER COURT , HAVE ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION IN ANY DISPUTE

(A) BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ONE OR MORE STATES ; OR

(B) BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ANY STATE OR STATES ON ONE SIDE AND ONE OR MORE OTHER
STATES ON THE OTHER ; OR

(C) BETWEEN TWO OR MORE STATES , IF AND IN SO FAR AS THE DISPUTE INVOLVES ANY QUESTION (WHETHER OF
LAW OR FACT ) ON WHICH THE EXISTENCE OR EXTENT OF A LEGAL RIGHT DEPENDS : PROVIDED THAT THE SAID
JURISDICTION SHALL NOT EXTEND TO A DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF ANY TREATY , AGREEMENT , COVENANT ,
ENGAGEMENTS , AND OR OTHER SIMILAR INSTRUMENT WHICH , HAVING BEEN ENTERED INTO OR EXECUTED
BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS C ONSTITUTION , CONTINUES IN OPERATION AFTER SUCH
COMMENCEMENT , OR WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE SAID JURISDICTION SHALL NOT EXTEND TO SUCH A DISPUTE .
 SUSHANT UNIVERSITY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2021

{MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT}

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND – THE DEFINITION OF CITIZENSHIP

Citizenship is the status of a person recognized under the law as being a legal member of a
sovereign state or belonging to a nation. The idea of citizenship has been defined as the capacity
of individuals to defend their rights in front of the governmental authority. Individual states and
nations recognize citizenship of persons according to their own policies, regulations and criteria
as to who is entitled to its citizenship.

Nationality is often used as a synonym for citizenship in English – notably in international law –
although the term is sometimes understood as denoting a person's membership of a nation. In some
countries, e.g. the United States, the United Kingdom, nationality and citizenship can have
different meanings.
CITIZENSHIP IN ROGIANA

The State of Rogiana came into existence after its division from the "undivided Rogiana" and
separation from Sandesiya. The Rogiana Constitution was implemented in 1950.

The Constitution guaranteed citizenship to all of the country's residents at its commencement and
made no distinction on the basis of religion.

The Rogiana government passed the Citizenship Act in 1955. The Act provided two means for
foreigners to acquire Rogiana citizenship. People from "undivided Rogiana" were given a means
 SUSHANT UNIVERSITY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2021

{MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT}

of registration after seven years of residency in Rogiana. Those from other countries were given a
means of naturalization after twelve years of residency in Rogiana.

In the 1980s, violent Possam movement against all migrants from Sandesiya triggered revisions to
the Citizenship Act of 1955. In the year 1985, the Citizenship Act was first amended after the
Possam Accord was signed, wherein the Rogiana government Prime Minister agreed to identify
foreign citizens, remove them from the electoral roles, and expel them from the country.

The Citizenship Act was further amended in 1992, 2003, 2005 and 2015.

In December 2003, the then Rogiana government, passed the Citizenship (Amendment) Act,

2003 which added the notion of "illegal immigrants" to the Act, making them ineligible to apply
for citizenship (by registration or naturalisation), and declaring their children also as illegal
immigrants.The 2003 amendment also mandated the Government of Rogiana to create and
maintain a National Register of Citizens.

Illegal immigrants were defined as citizens of other countries who entered Rogiana without valid
travel documents, or who remained in the country beyond the period permitted by their travel
documents. They can be deported or jailed.

During the debate in Legislature on the amendment, the leader of opposition stated that refugees
belonging to minority communities in Sandesiya and other countries had faced persecution, and
requested that the government’s approach to granting them citizenship be made more liberal. It
was based on the idea that Vinkin community in Zamistan and Panghanishtan(both neighbouring
countries of Rogiana) that had experienced persecution also needed to be treated with compassion.

Rogiana is not a signatory to either the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or the 1967 Protocol relating
to refugees. It does not have a national policy on refugees. All refugees are classed as "illegal
migrants".
 SUSHANT UNIVERSITY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2021

{MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT}

While Rogiana has been willing to host refugees, its traditional position is that such refugees must
return to their home countries after the situation returns to normal.

Further, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act of 2019 amended the Citizenship Act, 1955, by
inserting the following provisions in section 2, sub-section (1), after clause (b):

“Provided that any person belonging to Rindhu, Mikh, Juddhist, Haim, Aasi or Moristian
community from Panghanishtan, Sandesiya or Zamistan, who entered into Rogiana on or
before the 31st day of December, 2014 and who has been exempted by the Rogiana
Government by or under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Passport (Entry
into Rogiana) Act, 1920 or from the application of the provisions of the Foreigners Act,
1946 or any rule or order made thereunder, shall not be treated as illegal migrant for the
purposes of this Act.”

A new section 6B was also inserted (in the section concerning naturalization), with four clauses,
the first of which stated:

“The Rogiana Government or an authority specified by it in this behalf may, subject to

such conditions, restrictions and manner as may be prescribed, on an application made in
this behalf, grant a certificate of registration or certificate of naturalization to a person
referred to in the provisor to clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 2.”

The "exempted" classes of persons were also previously defined in the Foreigners (Amendment)
Order, 2015 (issued under the Foreigners Act, 1946):

“3A. Exemption of certain class of foreigners – (1) Persons belonging to minority

communities in Sandesiya and Zamistan, namely, Rindhus, Mikhs, Juddhists, Haims, Aasis
and Moristians who were compelled to seek shelter in Rogiana due to religious persecution
 SUSHANT UNIVERSITY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2021

{MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT}

or fear of religious persecution and entered into Rogiana on or before the 31st December,
2014:

(a) without valid documents including passport or other travel documents and who
have been exempted under rule 4 from the provisions of rule 3 of the Passport
(Entry into Rogiana) Rules, 1950 [...]; or

(b) With valid documents including passport or other travel document and the
validity of any of such documents has expired,

are hereby granted exemption from the application of provisions of the Foreigners Act,
1946, and the orders made there under in respect of their stay in Rogiana without such
documents or after the expiry of those documents, as the case may be [...].”

The Rules had been further amended in 2016 by adding Panghanishtanto this list of countries.
Exemptions were granted to north-eastern regions of Rogiana in the clause (4) of section 6B that
nothing in this section shall apply to tribal areas as included in the Sixth Schedule to the
Constitution and the area covered under “The Inner Line” notified under the Sandesh Eastern
Frontier Regulation, 1873.

NRC FOR CITIZENSHIP CHECK

The National Register of Citizens is a registry of all legal citizens, whose construction and
maintenance were mandated by the 2003 amendment of the Citizenship Act. As of January 2020,
it has only been implemented in one of the State of Rogiana (Possam), but the government has
promised its implementation for the whole of Rogiana. The NRC documents all the legal citizens
so that the people who are left out can be recognized as illegal immigrants.

DISSENTS
 SUSHANT UNIVERSITY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2021

{MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT}

The passage of the Act triggered different types of protests and criticisms in the country. In other
parts of Rogiana, political and student activists protested that the law is prejudicial against Vinkins
and sought that, Vinkin migrants and refugees should also be granted Rogianan citizenship as per
its secular foundations.

Students from various prestige universities also held protests. More than 25 student associations
from all over Rogiana joined protest.

The foreign intelligence agency of Rogiana (RZI), had also expressed concern while deposing in
front of the joint parliamentary committee, and had stated that the Act could be used by agents of
the foreign intelligence agencies to infiltrate legally into Rogiana.

Various cities around the world witnessed protests against the Act and the police brutality faced
by Rogianan protesters. Many of the International Organizations from all over the World have
expressed their concern about present situation of CAA-NRC and urged the Government of
Rogiana to ensure the safety of the other minority communities and to follow obligation of Charter
of the UN and International Law.

The government claimed that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act of 2019 does not violate Article
14, Article 25 and Article 21 of the Constitution of Rogiana. That Article 15 and Article 21 apply
only to the entities which reside in Rogiana, not to those which want to enter Rogiana.
 SUSHANT UNIVERSITY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2021

{MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT}

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. The impugned provisions are arbitrary and violate classification tests under Article 14 as
it groups only three countries and six religions and expressly excludes specific religions
and regions;
2. The Act violates Article 21 by creating a separate class of individuals who would be
rendered stateless;
3. Whether the impugned provisions violate the notion of secularism under the Rogianan
Constitution?
4. Whether the impugned provisions violate Rogiana’s binding obligations under the
International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights?
 SUSHANT UNIVERSITY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2021

{MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT}

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. This law is highly discriminatory against specific religions. CAA violates Article 14 on all
three counts of reasonable classification, arbitrariness in state action and treating people
unequally without reason.
2. The Act violates Article 21 by creating a separate class of individuals who would be
rendered stateless.The Act protects only one class of individuals and leaves the lives of the
rest in peril. The ambiguity left by the Act creates an altogether separate class of individuals
who are at a high risk of being rendered stateless.The act contradicts the basic values and
principles of the constitution.
3. The impugned provisions violate the notion of secularism under the Rogianan
Constitution.These provisions are religiously biased as they favour other religions over
Vinkin Community. Also, they create a disproportion of religion-wise representation in
Rogianan citizen population. CAA Violates Secularism, Basic Structure of Constitution':
A.P. Shah.
4. The impugned provisions violate Rogiana’s binding obligations under the International
Covenant for Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This is because they discriminate between individuals on the basis of religion and national
origin which is oppose to both of them .The CAA is inconsistent with rule of law principles
and international law.
 SUSHANT UNIVERSITY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2021

{MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT}

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. This law is highly discriminatory against specific religions, going completely

against the principles set in the Indian Constitution, especially Article 14 that
recognizes equality amongst all religions. The Article 14 of the Rogianan Constitution
provides each and every person, irrespective of his/her citizenship, ‘Right to Equality’.
It states,
“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory of Rogiana.”
Yet the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 makes distinct classification on two different
grounds – the first one being, on the basis of country of origin or nationality and the second
one, on the basis of religion practiced by the people. Now, these two classifications lead us
to two assumptions made by the Respondents in framing the law.

The first one is that the persecution of people belonging to the religious minority communities
takes place only in the neighbouring countries of Sandesiya, Zamistan and Panghanishtan and
nowhere else in the world. Here, the Petitioner would like to bring to notice of the Hon’ble
Apex Court of Rogiana that the country of Bhutan has been seeing the persecution of
Moristians in the name of religion for a long while now and Sri Lanka too has witnessed the
persecution of the Tamil-speaking minority group in large numbers and the state religion of
both these countries is Juddhism, which ironically preaches non-violence to the world.CAA
violates Article 14 on all three counts of reasonable classification, arbitrariness in state action
and treating people unequally without reason. CAA is not reasonable as it does not cover Vinkin
minorities like Ahmadiyyas, Hazaras and Shias. It is arbitrary as it applies restrictively to only
 SUSHANT UNIVERSITY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2021

{MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT}

three countries in our neighbourhood. The inequality in treatment stems from considering
religion as condition for entitlement of protection by the Indian government.

The amendment has been criticised as discriminating on the basis of religion, particularly
for excluding Vinkins. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights (OHCHR) called it "fundamentally discriminatory", adding that while Rogiana’s
"goal of protecting persecuted groups is welcome", this should be accomplished through a
non-discriminatory "robust national asylum system”. Critics express concerns that the bill
would be used, along with the National Register of Citizens (NRC), to render many Vinkin
citizens stateless, as they may be unable to meet stringent birth or identity proof
requirements. The act contradicts the basic values and principles of the constitution, In
view of the anxiety among the people of the country the Centre should take steps to drop
the CAA and uphold the outlook of the constitution.
The Article 21 of the Rogianan Constitution provides each and every person, irrespective
of his/her citizenship, ‘Right to Life and Personal Liberty’. It states,
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law.”
Rogiana is neither a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention nor the 1967 Protocol
relating to refugees. The country does not even have a national policy on refugees. All
refugees are in fact, classed as "illegal migrants". While Rogiana has been willing to host
refugees, its traditional position is that such refugees must return to their home countries
after the situation returns to normal.
2. Now, the CAA 2019 provides for the Rogianan citizenship of those minority religious
communities who had entered Rogiana by 31 December 2014 and had suffered
religious persecution or fear of religious persecution in their nations. This implies that
the people from the same communities who fled to Rogiana for the same reason from
the three mentioned countries, the people from the Vinkin community, who migrated
 SUSHANT UNIVERSITY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2021

{MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT}

to Rogiana fearing religious persecution in their native state and the people from
countries other than Zamistan, Panghanishtan and Sandesiya who entered Rogiana
fearing for their lives from their countries will not be granted citizenship and they will
be termed as ‘illegal immigrants’. They all will be rendered stateless as they have
already abandoned their native state and they can’t call Rogiana ‘their’ state
legally.This will not just hamper their status of citizenship, but also their right to life
and personal liberty as they will be treated as refugees and will be bound to leave
Rogiana the moment the situation calms in their original state, hence endangering their
own lives as there would be no assurance of their safety. Therefore the Act violates
Article 21 of the Rogianan Constitution and creates a separate class of individuals,
whose Right to Life and Personal Liberty will be hampered and they will be rendered
stateless.
3. The impugned provisions are religiously biased. The Constitution of Rogiana in 1950
on implementation had guaranteed citizenship to all of the country's residents
irrespective of religion. But, it slowly and slowly started moving towards degradation
and the initially guaranteed idea secular nation of Rogiana started fading away.In 1955,
the Citizenship Act came into existence, which provided for two means to acquire
Rogiana citizenship to the foreigners – firstly, people from ‘undivided Rogiana’ to gain
the citizenship of Rogiana by seven years of residency and secondly, citizenship by
naturalization, people from other countries to gain the citizenship of Rogiana by twelve
years of residency. Till this point, citizenship in Rogiana was secular in nature. But, in
the year 1985, when Possam Accord was signed, it led to the first amendment in the
1955 Act by which the term ‘illegal immigrants’ was defined. Theywere defined as
citizens of other countries who entered Rogiana without valid travel documents, or who
remained in the country beyond the period permitted by their travel documents. They
could be deported or jailed.
 SUSHANT UNIVERSITY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2021

{MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT}

The 2019 Amendment Act, brought new provisions like a new section 6B with four clauses,
proviso after section 2, sub-section (1), clause (b), etc. which violated the notion of
secularism stated in the Preamble to the Constitution of Rogiana. These provisions talk
about providing citizenship to any person belonging to Rindhu, Mikh, Juddhist, Haim, Aasi
or Moristian community from Panghanishtan, Sandesiya or Zamistan, who entered into
Rogiana on or before the 31st day of December, 2014 by naturalization. These provisions
specifically exclude Vinkins from the benefit thus demeaning a religious community and
violating the secular policy of Rogiana. . CAA Violates Secularism, Basic Structure of
Constitution': A.P. Shah, [T]he law [the CAA] ... lays the foundations for a brutal assault
on secularism—a precept that the Court has repeatedly viewed as forming a bastion of the
Constitution’s basic structure.Also, they create a disproportion of religion-wise
representation in Rogianan citizen population. The provisions are not secular as they do
not treat all the religions equally and they grant citizenship on the basis of religion

4. The CAA is inconsistent with rule of law principles and international law. The CAA is
inconsistent with rule of law principles and international law, including the right to
equality before the law and the right to non-discrimination, protected under human
rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, to
which Rogiana is a party. The implementation of the National Register of Citizens
(NRC) in Assam risks making 1.9 million persons stateless. A nationwide NRC will
put more people at risk. The past decade has seen significant challenges posed to
international human rights law. Armed conflicts, minority persecution and nationalist
xenophobia have contributed to the increase in the number of stateless populations
around the world. Much like the United States and Myanmar, India too remains steadily
blind to the perils of statelessness. The recently passed Citizenship Amendment
 SUSHANT UNIVERSITY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2021

{MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT}

Act [“CAA”] is no stranger to controversy. The Rogianan Parliament’s clearance of the

CAA was met with widespread protests across the country. The UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights has described the bill as “fundamentally
discriminatory”. Article 15(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
[“UDHR”] prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of one’s nationality. While India signed
the UDHR in 1948, it is not a legally binding document. Enforceability aside, the CAA
directly contravenes the right to a nationality.
 SUSHANT UNIVERSITY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2021

{MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT}

PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND

AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT
1. to Declare, the impugned provisions as arbitrary and violative of the classification tests under
Article 14 as they groups only three countries and six religions and expressly excludes specific
religions and regions.

2. to Declare, the Act violative of Article 21 as it creates a separate class of individuals who would
be rendered stateless.

3. to Hold, the impugned provisions violative of the notion of secularism under the Rogianan
Constitution.

4. to Declare, the impugned provisions violative of Rogiana’s binding obligations under the
International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.

AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT
MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.
All of which is humbly prayed,
SU02
Counsels for the Petitioners