Best Team Memorial Petitioner Nlujaa Vox Anatolis National Navishaba1860 Hpnluacin 20230611 174944 1 19

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Sunday, June 11, 2023

Printed For: Navisha 1020181960, Himachal Pradesh National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st NLUJAA Vox Anatolis National Moot, 2019

Best Team Memorial - Petitioner
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 9
STATEMENT OF FACTS 10
ISSUES RAISED 11
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 12
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 1
1. THAT THE PUBLIC I NTEREST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE HON'BLE 1
COURT.
1.1. The Petitioner has Locus Standi and Sufficient Interest 1
1.2. The Hon'ble Court is a “Sentinel on the Qui Vive” 2
1.3. There are Substantial Questions of Law Involved 3
1.4. No Alternate and Efficacious Remedy is Available to the Petitioner 3
2. THAT THE CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2017 CONSTITUTIONALLY I NVALID 3
2.1. The impugned Act violates Article 14 4
2.2. The impugned Act violates Article 21 6
1.1. The impugned Act violates Article 29(1) 10
3. THAT THE AMENDMENT VIOLATES THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION 11
3.1. The Impugned Act Violates the Part III of the Constitution 12
3.2. That the Act violates the principle of Secularism enshrined in the 12
Preamble of the Constitution
3.3. The Act must be declared Invalid due to Violation of the Basic 14
Structure of the Constitution
3.4. The principle of Transformative Constitutionalism must be used as 14
an Interpretative Mechanism
4. THAT THE POCHINKI GOVERNMENT CAN DEPORT I LLEGAL I MMIGRANTS 15
4.1. Pochinki is not a signatory of any International Convention 15
relating to the rights of refuges
4.2. Non-Refoulement under Article 21 16
4.3. Non-Refoulment under Article 51 17
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.4. Inapplicability of Customary International Law to Non- 18

Refoulement
4.5. Article 51 remains a ‘Directive Principle’ and is not a Mandatory 19
Rule of Governance.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 20
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
A.K. Bindal v. Union of India, (2003) 5 SCC 163 7
Assam Sanmilta Mahasangha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 3
1
B.R. Kapoor v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2001) 7 SCC 231 14
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161 : AIR 1984 SC 1
802
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar R. Nandkarni, (1983) 7
1 SCC 124 : 1983 SCR (1) 828
Budhan Choudhry and Ors v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191 4
Centre for Environment and Food Security v. Union of India, (2011) 5 SCC 7
676
Centre for Environment and Food Security v. Union of India, (2011) 5 SCC 7
676
CERC v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42 7
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 613 : AIR 1990 SC 1480 6
Comptroller & Auditor General of India v. Kamlesh Vadilal Mehta, (2003) 2 5
SCC 349 : AIR 2003 SC 1096
D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar 2
Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Admn., (1992) 4 7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCC 99
Election Commission of India v. St. Mary's School, (2008) 2 SCC 390 8
Francis Coralie v. Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608 7
Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1975) 2 SCC 148 17
H.S. Jain v. Union of India, (1997) 1 UPBLEC 594 10
Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 2
98 : AIR 1979 SC 1369
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 SCC 1 12
Jagdev Singh Sidhhanti v. Pratap Singh Dulta, 1964 6 SCR 750 11
Jaila Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1976) 1 SCC 602 : AIR 1975 SC 1436 5
Janata Dal v. H.S. Choudhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305 : AIR 1993 SC 892 1
Javed v. State of Haryana, (2003) 8 SCC 369 : AIR 2003 SC 3057 8
John Vallamattom v. Union of India, (2003) 6 SCC 611 5
Joseph Shine v. Union of India, 2018 SCC Online SC 1676 14
Kangshari Haldar v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1960 SC 457 4
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 14,
12, 5,
4
Khadija v. Union of India (Crl WP No 658 17
Khudiram Chakma v. Union of India, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 615 : AIR 1994 SC 17
1461
KK Kouchunni v. State of Madra, AIR 1959 SC 725 3
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 : AIR 1997 SC 1125 12
Louis De Radt v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 554 : AIR 1991 SC 1886 17
M. Janardhan Rao v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (2005) 2 SCC 324 3
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : AIR 2007 SC 71 4
M.G. Badappanavar v. State of Karnataka, (2001) 2 SCC 666 4
Madhu Limaye v. Superintendent, Tihar Jail, Delhi, (1975) 1 SCC 525 5
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 : AIR 1978 SC 597 4, 7
Mohammed Sadiq v. Government of India, (Civil Rule Writ No 405/98) 17
Mohini v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 3 SCC 666 : AIR 1992 SC 1858 3
Municipal Corporation v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, AIR 2012 9
SC 100
Namit Sharma v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 745 (800) 12
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438 14
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, 2018 SCC Online SC 1350 14
Nilabati v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746 : AIR 1993 SC 1960 16
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545 : AIR 1986 7
SC 180
Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386 : AIR 2000 SC 3689 4
Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2005) 3 SCC 551 12
Rama Rao, V.R.V Sree v. Telegudesam Political Party, AIR 1983 AP 96 11
Razakbhai Issakbhai Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 659 19
Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124 3
S.P. Gupta v. President of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87 : AIR 1982 SC 149 1
Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665 : AIR 2005 SC 2, 9,
2920 11, 17
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice 4
Sidhirajbhai Sabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1963 SC 540 11
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narai 14

Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (2012) 6 12
SCC 1 : AIR 2012 SC 3445
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1 13
State of Arunchal Pradesh v. Khudiram Chakma, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 615 16, 17
State of Karnataka v. Praveen Bhai Thogadia, (2004) 4 SCC 684 : AIR 2004 13
SC 2081
State of Karnataka v. Union of India & Anr., (1977) 3 SCC 592 : AIR 1977 14
SC 1361
State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC 310 : AIR 1976 SC 490 14
State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196 2
State of West Bengal v. Committee For Protection of Democratic Rights, 12
(2010) 3 SCC 571
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481 10
The Chairman, Railway Board & Ors v. Mrs. Chandrima Das & Ors., (2002) 2 16
SCC 465
The State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad, (1974) 4
4 SCC 656 : AIR 1974 SC 1300
Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645 : AIR 1993 SC 8
2178
Upendra Baxi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1986) 4 SCC 106 : AIR 1987 SC 2
191
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241 18
Waman Rao v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 362 : AIR 1981 SC 271 12
Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ram Das Mehra, (1976) 2 SCC 13
17
Zoroastrian Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. District Registrar, 5
Cooperation. Societies (Urban), (2005) 5 SCC 632
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
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. V.G. Ramchandran, Law of Writs, 26 (6th ed., 2006)
10. Tapan K Bose, Protection of Refugees in South Asia: The Need for a Legal
Framework (2000)
REPORTS, ARTICLES AND DEBATES REFERRED
1. Omar Chaudhary, Turning Back: An Assessment of Non-Refoulement under
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indian Law, 39 Economic and Political Weekly, 3257 (2004),

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4415288 last seen on 15/02/2019.
2. Report of the Joint Committee on the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016, Lok
Sabha, Sess. 16
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS REFERRED
1. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007
2. United Nations Refugee Convention, 1951
3. Statue of the International Court of Justice
4. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2009
5. Assam Accord, 1985
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 separated in 1947, on the basis of religion. Before partition,
the population of Pochinki was: Ralivs (67%), Galivs (30%), Tsalivs (2%) and the
remaining 1% 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 minorities in these two newly formed countries were
persecuted and as a result of which they migrated to Pochinki. The government of post
-partition Pochinki provided citizenship to such migrants. Thus 4 years after partition
the religious 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. The Culture, language, tribes etcetera of Kameshki is different from the other
parts of Pochinki and the state shares the longest border with Mylta.
Kameshki Accord: This influx of immigrants changed and hindered the
demography, language and culture of Kameshki substantially. Thus in 1978, the Youth
of Kameshki started an agitation against the illegal migrants who came from Mylta,
irrespective of their religion. In 1985, it culminated into the Kameshki Accord of 1985
that was signed between the representatives of the Government of Pochinki and
leaders of the Kameshki Agitation. The leaders of the agitation accepted 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) Act, 2017: In 2017, the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill,
2017 was passed by the Parliament, whose purpose was to provide Citizenship to the
non-Galivs immigrants of Pochinki fleeing religious persecution from Gatka and Mylta.
Present Petition: On 30th July, 2017, All Kameshki Student's Union approached
the Supreme Court to declare the Act as constitutionally invalid and thus scrap it. The
natives feared that the Act may endanger their culture, language, limited resources,
jobs, land and thus opposed the Act.
Hence 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 CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 IS IN VIOLATION OF THE BASIC
STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THEREFORE LIABLE TO BE STRUCK DOWN AS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
ISSUE IV
WHETHER THE UNION GOVERNMENT OF POCHINKI CAN DEPORT THE I LLEGAL I MMIGRANTS OF
MYLTA AND GATKA?
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 maintainable because, it has requisite locus standi and interest in
the present case [1.1]. Since the court is a “sentinel on the qui vive” [1.2] and the
petition involves substantial questions of law involved, [1.3] there is no alternative
and efficacious remedy in the present case. [1.4]
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 unconstitutional insofar as it comes to granting illegal immigrants'
citizenship, because it is violative of Article 14 [2.1] as it involves unreasonable
classification of people [2.1.1], procedural differentiation among foreigners [2.1.2]
and is hence violative of Article 5 and 6 of the Constitution. [2.1.3] The impugned Act
is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of Pochinki. [2.2] The impugned violates
Article 29 [2.3] with respect to Right to livelihood and work [2.3.1], right to
Development [2.3.2] and Right to Public Safety. [2.3.3] Moreover, the impugned Act
in the present case violates Article 355. [2.4]
3. 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 petitioner humbly submits that apart from violation of fundamental rights, the
Act is also in violation of the Basic Structure of the Constitution which renders the Act
unconstitutional. The Amendment is not in consonance with Law as it violates the
fundamental rights mentioned in Part III [3.1], is against the values of Secularism
[3.2] and because of the growing need for transformative constitutionalism. [3.3]
4. Whether the Union Government of Pochinki can deport the immigrants for
Mylta and Gatka?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that Pochinki can deport the
immigrants who have illegally entered the country because Pochinki is not a signatory
of the International Conventions of Refugees [4.1]. It is pertinent to note the Non-
Refoulement Policy with respect to Article 21 [4.2] and Article 51 of the Constitution.
[4.3] Moreover, customary international laws are incapable under the Non-
Refoulement policy [4.4] and Article 51 is not a mandatary law but a Directive
Principle. [4.5]
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE HON'BLE COURT.
1. A Public Interest Litigation is filed by on behalf of a section of the society which
complains of violation of fundamental rights is maintainable1 in their bona fide interest
for judicial redressal.2 It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that
the present petition filed before the bench is maintainable on the grounds that the
Petitioner has requisite Locus Standi and interest [1.1] Hon'ble Court is a “sentinel on
the qui vive”. [1.2] The instant matter involves substantial questions of law [1.3] for
which there is no alternate and efficacious remedy available. [1.4]
1.1. THE PETITIONER HAS LOCUS STANDI AND SUFFICIENT INTEREST
2. It is most humbly submitted that this Hon'ble Court has held that a writ petition
under Article 32 as a Public Interest Litigation (hereinafter referred to as ‘PIL’) by a
public-spirited person on behalf of a section of the society which complains of violation
of fundamental rights is maintainable.3
3. All Kameshki Student's Union, a student body having roots across Kameshki4 has
the requisite locus standi to approach this court in the present matter. Locus Standi
means the right to bring an action, to be heard in court, or to address the court on a
matter before it.5 In other words, the term “locus standi” can be understood as legal
capacity to challenge legislation, an order or a decision.6
4. In the case of Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India,7 this Hon'ble court had
held that legislation having the effect of giving shelter and protection to foreign
nationals illegally having entered and residing in India can be challenged by any
citizen.
5. Furthermore, a petitioner will be deemed to have sufficient interest to maintain a
petition under Article 32 as a member of the public because it is the right of the public
to be governed by laws made in accordance with the Constitution and not laws made
by the legislature in violation of the constitutional provisions.8 It is submitted that the
fundamental rights of the citizens of Pochinki guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 29
have been infringed by the impugned legislation. Detailed arguments with respect to
the same have been dealt with in the subsequent issues9 in the written submissions.
6. In the instant case, it is observed that the petitioner, All Kameshki Student's
Union is filing the aforesaid PIL for the pro bono interest10 of the general public and
general welfare of the people of Kameshki, and Pochinki in general. Therefore, in light
of this, each and every citizen of Pochinki has the right to question the same and
therefore, All Kameshki Student's Union by representing the people of Kameshki and
Pochinki, in general have the requisite locus standi and public interest in the present
case.
1.2. THE HON'BLE COURT IS A “SENTINEL ON THE QUI VIVE”
7. This Hon'ble Court has repeatedly assumed the role of the “sentinel on the qui
vive”11 to enforce fundamental rights of the people. It is humbly submitted that in
light of the prevailing circumstances in Kameshki, which are continuously depriving a
large section of the native population of their fundamental rights, the Court has the
constitutional duty and obligation12 to entertain this petition. The Right to Equality,13
the Right to Life and Personal Liberty,14 along with the Right to preserve one's
culture15 are fundamental rights. It is the duty of the Courts to examine the merits of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
each case with respect to the prevailing situation, ooking at the fundamental rights
violations alleged, and make a decision in view of the changing notions of life and
personal liberty of humans.16
1.3. THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW INVOLVED
8. The facts and the circumstances of the case must disclose a substantial question
of law for a petition to be maintainable.17 In the present case, three substantial
questions of law have been framed to be decided by this Hon'ble Court.18 Adjudication
on these pertinent issues necessitates the admission of the petition.
1.4. NO ALTERNATE AND EFFICACIOUS REMEDY IS AVAILABLE TO THE
PETITIONER
9. It is humbly submitted that, approaching the Supreme Court under Article 32 for
the protection of fundamental rights is itself a fundamental right.19 It is unnecessary
to first approach the High Court and exhaust the remedy under Article 226 before
approaching the Supreme Court.20 Hence, it was held before this Hon'ble court that
mere existence of an adequate alternative legal remedy cannot be per se be a good
and sufficient ground for dismissing a petition under Article 32.21
By the reason of the above holdings, the present petition stands maintainable in the
absence of an alternate and efficacious remedy.
2. THAT THE CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT , 2017 CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID
10. It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 2017 is unconstitutional as it is inconsistent with Part III of the
Constitution. Article 13(2) states “The State shall not make any law which takes away
or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this
clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void”22 Therefore, as per Article 13
(2) of the Constitution, the impugned Act is void and liable to be struck down.
Furthermore, as the impugned act also Article 14 [2.1] Article 21 [2.2] and Article 29
(1) [2.3] enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, it is unconstitutional and liable to
be struck down.
2.1. THE IMPUGNED ACT VIOLATES ARTICLE 14
11. It is humbly submitted that the Petitioner's right to equality under the law as
per Article 14 of the Constitution of Pochinki has been violated, by the classes created
under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2017. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in
State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment.23 The principle of
classification under Article 14 has been the subject of deliberation in a catena of
cases.24
2.1.1. That There Is An Unreasonable Classification
12. Article 14 is based on the rule of law and equality before law.25 It is humbly
submitted that the right to equality is a basic feature of the Constitution,26 and the
Parliament cannot transgress the principle of equality.27 Therefore, no action of the
State should be of an arbitrary and irrational nature which distinguishes among
individuals.28
13. While the State is permitted to exercise differentiation amongst certain
individuals who are differently situated, it must possess a rational nexus with the
object of the enactment and an intelligible differentia.29 This is called the Doctrine of
Reasonable Classification. To attract Article 14, it is necessary to show that the
selection or differentiation is unreasonable or arbitrary, and that it does not rest on
any rational basis with regard to the object which the Legislature has in view in
making the law in question.30
14. It is humbly submitted that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2017 creates a
classification, which is unreasonable and thus fails to satisfy the Doctrine of
Reasonable Classification. The words “Ralivs and Galivs from Mylta and Gatka” in
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 3 of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2017, are making an unreasonable

classification between illegal foreign migrants based on the country they come from.
By virtue of this provision, illegal migrants entering Pochinki from any other country
cannot even be given a chance to obtain citizenship under Section 5(1) or Section 6(1)
of the Citizenship Act, 1955. In the case of Madhu Limaye v. Superintendent. Tihar
Jail, Delhi,31 differential treatment meted out to prisoners from different countries was
held violative of Article 14.
15. Article 14 read in light of the preamble of the Constitution reflects the thinking
of the Constitution makers to prevent any discrimination based on religion or origin in
the matter of equal treatment.32 Pochinki is a Secular nation and creating a law
granting citizenship on the basis of religion violates the Basic Structure of the
Constitution.33 The impugned Act grants citizenship only to illegal migrants belonging
to the religious minority communities, namely, Ralivs and Tsalivs,34 while not
recognizing persons belonging to Galiv community who also migrated from the above
countries and have settled in Pochinki.35 Thus, the impugned Act treats a class of
persons differently based on their religion. Such a classification is violative of Article
14.36 It is hence submitted that this is a clear case of classification within a class,37
which is arbitrary and violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution.38
2.1.2. That the Impugned Act creates a Procedural Differentiation among
Foreigners
16. Section 5 and 6 of the Citizenship Act, 195539 provide for citizenship by
registration and naturalisation respectively. Under these two sections, citizenship is
granted to persons who are non-citizens of Pochinki.
17. Clause (d) in the Third Schedule (read with section 6(1)) of the Citizenship Act,
1955, prescribes that the aggregate period of residence in Pochinki or service of the
Government of Pochinki should not be less than eleven years to qualify for
naturalisation. However the impugned Amendment in the Act reduces this period to
“not less than six years” for minority communities, namely, Ralivs and Tsalivs from
Gatka and Mylta.40 By virtue of this provision, a differentiation is created with regards
to the procedure to gain citizenship through naturalisation among non-citizens.
Therefore it is humbly submitted, that such differentiation is violates Article 14 of the
Constitution.41
2.1.3. That This Unreasonable Classification Violates Articles 5 And 6
18. A cumulative reading of Articles 5 and 6 of the Constitution reveals that the two
Articles define who a “citizen” is. However, the impugned creates a new class of
“citizens” itself through the aforementioned classifications. This goes beyond the scope
and violates Articles 5 and 6 Although it may be argued that this is permissible under
the mandate of Article 11, it is humbly submitted that the powers under Article 11 are
not unfettered. It is no more res integra that Parliaments cannot make laws against
the constitutional mandate.42
2.2. THE IMPUGNED ACT VIOLATES ARTICLE 21
19. According to Article 21, no person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to procedure established by law.43 It is humbly submitted that
the expression “life” in Article 21 of the Constitution of Pochinki is used to mean
something more than mere animal existence.44 It is multi-faceted, including numerous
strands such as the right to livelihood,45 public safety, development, and a meaningful
existence.46 If any statutory provision runs counter to such a right, it must be held
unconstitutional.47
2.2.1. There is a Violation of the Right to Livelihood and Right to Work
20. The Right to Life embraces within its fold, some of the finer facets of human
civilization which makes life worth living and that the expanded concept of life would
mean the tradition, culture and heritage of the person concerned.48 The Right to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Livelihood49 and Right to Work50 are an integral part of the Right to Life and dignity of
an individual.51 . In the case of Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar
R. Nandkarni,52 this court held that, “An equally important facet of right to life is the
right to livelihood because, no person can live without the means of living, that is, the
means of livelihood. If there is an obligation upon the state to secure to its citizens an
adequate means of livelihood and the right to work, it would be sheer pedantry to
exclude the right to life from the content of the right to life”
21. The impugned Act grants citizenship to Ralivs and Tsalivs, who have illegally
entered Pochinki. It is pertinent to note that the resources are scarce in Kameshki53
and the unabated influx of illegal immigrants which are granted citizenship by the
impugned act would deprive them of employment and livelihood in their own native
land. Thus, the influx of immigrants would lead to depletion of natural resources and
the natives will have to bear the brunt of unemployed. Therefore, this would violate
the Right to Livelihood and the Right to Work of the citizens of Pochinki, guaranteed by
Article 21 of the Constitution.
22. According to Article 38,54 it is the duty of the state to secure a social order for
the promotion of welfare of the people. According to Article 39(a),55 the citizens, men
and women equally, have the right to an adequate means to livelihood. Furthermore,
Article 4156 of the Constitution clearly states that the State shall make effective
provision for securing the Right to Work for the citizens of Pochinki. The impugned Act
will therefore cause failure of the State to perform its duty under Articles 38, 39 and
41.
23. Since it is also the duty of Courts to honour the laudable objectives of the
Directive Principles of State Policy,57 it is humbly submitted that the right to livelihood
and right to work as guaranteed under the umbrella of Articles 21, 38 and 39(a) and
41 is being violated by the impugned Act.
2.2.2. That There is a Violation of the Right to Development
24. It is most humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that the Right to
Development is a basic human right.58 It includes a spectrum of civil, cultural,
economic, political and social progress for wellbeing and realization of peoples'
potential.59 The influx of immigrants violated the Right to Development of the citizens.
25. It is contended that if the Act in question remains constitutional, it will mean
that the aggregate population of Kameshki and Pochinki will substantially increase and
the Government shall have to spend even more on the well-being of migrants, which
could rather have been used for development purposes. Due to this, they shall also
have lesser access to resources which were meant exclusively for them. Depriving one
section of the population of their Right to Life simply because another intervening
party's right can be enforced is not a valid ground for constitutionality.60 Therefore, the
Act in question violates the Right to development.
2.2.3. That There is a Violation of the Right to Public Safety
26. The main task of any legislation is to ensure public security.61 The illegal
migration of people from Gylta and Mylta poses major challenges to Kameshki in terms
of life, property and employment destruction.62 The immigration and protests began
threatening national security and the democratic fabric of Kameshki.
27. All in all, through a violation of these allied rights, the overall right of the
citizens of Pochinki to live a life with dignity is being violated, and thus there is a
violation of Article 21. Thus, it is humbly contended that the Citizenship (Amendment)
Act, 2017 is unconstitutional.
2.2.4. The Impugned Act is violative of Article 355
28. Article 355 of the Pochinki Constitution talks about the duty of the Union to
protect States against “external aggression” and “internal disturbance”. It shall hence
be the duty of the Union to ensure that the government of every State is carried on in
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.63

30. It is pertinent to note that the word “aggression” mentioned in Article 355 has
been construed to be a word of every wide importance, not limited only to war but as
comprising many other acts which cannot be termed as war. A ‘bloodless aggression’
from a vast and incessant flow of human beings forced to flee in another State, can
also constitute aggression under Article 355.64 In the case of Sarbananda Sonowal,65
the Supreme Court accepted the view that large-scale influx of illegal migrants into a
country amounts to external aggression and internal disturbances.
31. In the present case, the influx of such a large number of illegal migrants from
the neighbouring countries is in fact an “aggression” on the State of Kameshki and has
also contributed significantly in causing serious “internal disturbances”. Due to the
impugned Act, there were riots across the state and the law and order situation in
Kameshki has deteriorated rapidly.66 This form of internal disturbance causes grave
threat to the life of people. It therefore becomes the duty of Union of Pochinki to take
all measures for the protection of the State of Kameshki from such external aggression
and internal disturbance as enjoined in Article 355 of the Constitution.
32. The Respondent may argue that Article 355 cannot be invoked independently
and has to be read together with Article 356. However, it is pertinent to note that in
the case of H.S. Jain v. Union of India,67 it was held by the Court that Article 355 of
the Constitution can be invoked independently.
33. Therefore, the impugned Act is clearly negating the constitutional mandate
contained in Article 355, as the Union by enacting this section. The Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 2017 which therefore contravenes Article 355 of the Constitution is
wholly unconstitutional and liable to be struck down.
1.1. THE IMPUGNED ACT VIOLATES ARTICLE 29(1)
34. According to Article 29(1) of the Constitution, any section of the citizens
residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script
or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same.68 This constitutional
provision therefore protects language, script or culture. It is pertinent to note that this
section extends to ‘any section of citizens’ whether they belong to the minority or
majority community, the only condition being that such section must have a distinct
language, script or culture of its own.69
35. The entire state of Kameshki has different language and cultural traits,70
making them a minority under Article 29(1). The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2017,
grants citizenship to Ralivs and Tsalivs who have migrated from the neighbouring
country of Mylta to Pochinki. Their culture and language is also different from the
indigenous population of Kameshki.71 Therefore it ultimately poses a threat to the
unique culture possessed by the people of Kameshki, which violates their inherent
right to conserve and foster their distinct culture.
36. This Hon'ble Court has held that residents of a state can object to illegal
migration from a neighbouring country if it has had an adverse impact on the
language, script or culture of that state.72 In Jagdev Singh Sidhhanti v. Pratap Singh
Dulta,73 it was also held that the right to conserve the language includes the right to
agitate for the protection of that language. It is pertinent to note that the right
conferred by Clause (1) of Article 29 is an absolute right and cannot be subjected to
any reasonable restrictions.74 Further, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous People75 has emphasised the need to protect the rights of the indigenous
people that they derive from their political, economic and social structures and from
their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies. This also includes their
rights to land, territories and resources. Hence, it is the duty of the Government of
Pochinki to protect such rights of the indigenous people of Kameshki which have been
violated as a result of the operation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2017.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. This declaration also states that indigenous people have a right to live in
freedom, peace and security. It also goes on to posit that they should not be subjected
to forced assimilation and destruction of their culture. However, the incessant flow of
illegal migrants into the State of Kameshki has disrupted the traditional socio fabric of
the state and the rights of the indigenous people.
3. THAT THE AMENDMENT VIOLATES THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION
38. It is humbly submitted that the impugned Act, by virtue of violating Articles
14, 21 and 29(1) of the Constitution [3.1] and the constitutionally enshrined principle
of secularism, [3.2] does not follow the Basic Structure of the Constitution and hence
must be declared null and void.
3.1. THE IMPUGNED ACT VIOLATES THE PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION
39. It is humbly submitted that the supremacy of the Constitution mandates all
constitutional bodies to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. It also
mandates a mechanism for testing the validity of legislative acts through an
independent organ, viz. the judiciary.76 This power of judicial review is an essential
feature of the Constitution and part of its basic structure.77
40. Part III of the Constitution contains the Fundamental rights and thus protects
substantive as well as procedural rights.78 These fundamental rights act as a fetter on
plenary legislative powers79 and uphold the dignity of every individual.80 These
fundamental rights mentioned in Part III are a part of the basic structure of the
Constitution of Pochinki81 . Therefore, any law that abrogates or abridges such rights
would be violative of the doctrine of basic structure.82
41. It is humbly submitted that The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2017 violates
the fundamental rights enshrined in the Articles 14, 21 and 29(1), as established by
the petitioner. Thus, the impugned act violates the basic structure of the Constitution.
3.2. THAT THE ACT VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLE OF SECULARISM ENSHRINED IN THE
PREAMBLE OF THE CONSTITUTION
42. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala83 the Supreme Court reiterated that
secularism was a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Enumerating the basic
features of the Constitution, Sikri, C.J. named “secular character of the Constitution”84
as one of them. Shelat and Grover, JJ. stated that “secular and federal character of the
Constitution” were among the main ingredients of the basic structure enumerated
therein.85 This was reiterated by the Hon'ble Court in the case of S.R. Bommai v. Union
of India.86
43. In Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ram Das Mehra87 the Supreme
Court went on to define the concept of secularism in the realm of philosophy and in
utilitarian terms. The Court set the role of the State to be neutral or impartial in
extending its benefit to citizens of all castes and creeds and cast a duty on the State
to ensure through its laws that disabilities are not imposed based on persons
practising or professing any particular religion. This hon'ble court has further declared
that secularism is a part of fundamental law and an unalienable segment of the basic
structure of the country's political system.88
44. In the present case, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2017 provides immunity
of citizenship to people belonging to minority communities, namely, Ralivs and Tsalivs
of neighbouring areas of Mylta and Gatka and not to Ralivs. It is submitted by the
petitioners that the amendment of the act is unprecedented, in the sense that never
before has religion been specifically identified in the citizenship law as the ground for
distinguishing between citizens and non-citizens. The present Act has introduced
religion as a new principle into the citizenship law and can be conveniently branded as
“communally motivated humanitarianism”. The illegal immigrants who are to be
granted the benefit of this legislation are to qualify for citizenship only on the basis of
religion; requirement that goes against one of the basic tenets of the Constitution,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
secularism.
45. It is humbly submitted that while religious persecution may in the given facts
and circumstances could be a reasonable principle for differentiation, it cannot be
articulated in a manner that dilutes the republican and secular foundations of
citizenship, and goes against constitutional morality.
46. Submitting but not conceding, if the motive of the government is to protect
religiously persecuted people in the neighbourhood, the question of why they are
ignoring the Galiv community is inevitable. The said Act, does not provide the same
treatment and availment of rights to Galivs of the neighbouring countries. Exclusion of
a community from those who can avail relaxed norms for legal residency and eventual
citizenship of Pochinki, infringes the essence of secularism and integrity that the
Constitution promotes as mentioned above.
3.3. THE ACT MUST BE DECLARED INVALID DUE TO VIOLATION OF THE BASIC STRUCTURE
OF THE CONSTITUTION
47. It is humbly submitted that the Parliament does not have the power to damage
or destroy the basic structure or basic features of the Constitution.89 In Smt. Indira
Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain90 , the Hon'ble Court concluded that the test of
meeting the basic structure “can be and have to be used to test the validity of
ordinary laws just as other parts of the constitution.”. Further, in B.R. Kapoor v. State
of Tamil Nadu91 envisaged the extension of power of judicial review to executive
actions and/or ordinary laws impugned qua basic structure doctrine, which are on the
lines of the law laid down in State of Karnataka v. Union of India &Anr.92
In light of the above observations, it is humbly submitted that the impugned Act,
which is violative of the basic structure of the Constitution must be struck down.
3.4. THE PRINCIPLE OF TRANSFORMATIVE CONSTITUTIONALISM MUST BE USED AS AN
INTERPRETATIVE MECHANISM
48. So as to acknowledge changing times93 and conceptions on the notions of
citizenship, there is a need to apply transformative constitutionalism when interpreting
constitutional principles. Since equality is part of the morality guiding rule of law,94 it
is necessary to think of the Constitution as a living, ever-involving organism that
reduces the gap between legislative tyranny and progressing times.95 Fundamental
rights, therefore, do not change with time, but the underlying concepts behind them
do.96 Provisions such as the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, which have generated
considerable debate owing to recent ramifications, agitations and declining culture of
Kameshki must therefore be examined in a manner that abandons traditional notions
and considers current problems faced by Pochinki.
4. THAT THE POCHINKI GOVERNMENT CAN DEPORT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
49. It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that Pochinki can deport the
immigrants who have illegally entered the country because Pochinki is not a signatory
of the International Conventions of Refugees [4.1]. It is pertinent to note the Non-
Refoulement Policy with respect to Article 21 [4.2] and Article 51 of the Constitution.
[4.3] Moreover, customary international laws are incapable under the Non-
Refoulement policy [4.4] and Article 51 is not a mandatary law but a Directive
Principle. [4.5]
4.1. POCHINKI IS NOT A SIGNATORY OF ANY INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION RELATING TO
THE RIGHTS OF REFUGES
50. In the present case, the Government of Pochinki while having an informal
conversation among themselves were of the view that at no cost can Pochinki deport
the non Galiv immigrants, who were persecuted in Gatka and Mylta on the basis of
their religion , because Pochinki followed the policy of non-refoulment.97 However, it is
pertinent to note that there exists no refugee laws in Pochinki. Furthermore, Pochinki
has not signed any non-refoulement international agreements. Pochinki has signed
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
neither the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention nor its 1967 Protocol. Therefore,
the Government of Pochinki has the authority to deport the illegal migrants as it is not
bound to follow the policy of non-refoulment.
51. Though Pochinki has followed the international norms, there have been
exceptions to the rule, especially in matters ‘national security’, where Pochinki
deviated from its traditional hospitality. For instance, asylum seekers from Burma were
jailed and approximately 5000 Burmese refugees were pushed back home from 1995
to 1997.98
52. Further, the two primary governmental organisations dealing with refugees in
India are the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). It is pertinent to note that UNHCR's
presence in Pochinki is not guaranteed by law and it maintains operations in Pochinki
due to a purely political agreement between the government of India and the UN.
Further, no statute or constitutional provision guarantees that the government will
continue to honour the participation of the UN. Also, due to lack or resources the NHRC
does not provides any guarantee that bona fide refugees will stay safely within the
borders of India.
4.2. NON-REFOULEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 21
53. Article 21's Right to life which is the most fundamental of all is also the most
difficult to define.99 It is pertinent to note that the fundamental right of a foreigner is
confined to Article 21 for life and liberty and does not include the right to reside and
stay in this country.100 It is contended that article 21 provides less protection when
applied to aliens rather than citizens and it provides lesser protection when it conflicts
with the state's interests in immigration or national security.101 While Article 21 has
broadened in recent decades to encompass vast substantive rights, it apparently fails
to guarantee non-refoulement to each and every refugee. The historical development
of Article 21 reveals that substantive rights may not exist for aliens under the
Constitution. Non-citizens' claims to non-refoulement, which is ultimately a
substantive right, are therefore called into doubt by the historical development of
substantive due process under Article 21.
54. Even assuming that aliens retain some substantive rights under Article 21,102
those substantive rights are minimal when important matters of state are
concerned.103 In a recent case involving a tourist's (non-citizen's) right to ‘life and
personal liberty’, the Supreme Court stated the following: The primacy of the interest
of the nation and the security of the State will have to be read into every article
dealing with Fundamental Rights including Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.104
55. Therefore, the state's interest must be weighed against the interest in
individual rights. It is contended that State interest is of such paramount importance
that it would justify an infringement of the right.105 In this process of weighing
interests, the nation and security assume the highest priorities, and rules regarding
the treatment of refugees are inextricably intertwined with national security and
internal order.
50. Further, the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court have both confirmed that
state interests in national security and criminal matters outweigh the refugee's life and
personal liberty. In at least two different cases, the nation's highest courts have found
that refugees could be returned home when their continued presence interfered with
the national security of India.106 Therefore, the Ralivs and Tsalvis should be deported.
57. Furthermore, it is submitted that the rights under Article 21 are entitled to
those who are lawfully admitted to a country.107 In the case of Louis De Radt v. Union
of India,108 this Hon'ble Court held that the State has the right to expel aliens.
Therefore, the Ralivs and Tsalivs who have illegally crossed the border and have
trespassed into Kameshki or are living in other parts of the country have no legal right
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of any kind to remain in Pochinki and they are liable to be deported.

4.3. NON-REFOULMENT UNDER ARTICLE 51
58. It is humbly submitted that Pochinki follows the dualist approach to
international law, respecting international rules and regulations only if they are passed
as domestic legislation law. Article 51 enshrined the dual importance of national and
international law by directing the government to ‘maintain respect’ for international
law. It reads as follows: “The State shall endeavour to foster respect for international
law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised people with one another.”109
59. It is furthur submitted that the court has only used Article 51 to decide the
status of treaties actually signed by Pochinki. Relying on Article 51, it may be argued
that the principle of non-refoulement has been incorporated into domestic law via the
Constitution. However, the arguments fall short. First, India has not signed any
agreement that requires non refoulement and therefore is not bound-by any treaty-
based international obligations. Second, customary international law has never been
incorporated into Pochinki law under Article 51.
4.4. INAPPLICABILITY OF CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW TO NON-REFOULEMENT
60. Since Article 51 refers to both ‘treaty obligations’ and ‘international law’, some
have interpreted the latter term as referring to ‘customary international law’ (meaning
‘an international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law’).110
61. However, it is pertinent to note that the court has never come to pass on the
issue of customary law under Article 51, despite numerous opportunities to do so.111
The Court has only used Article 51 to decide the status of treaties actually signed by
Pochinki and the court leaves no indication that it plans to disrupt its decades-long
practice in order to incorporate the customary international norm of non-refoulement.
62. While non-refoulement definitely qualifies as customary international law, there
are problems with non-refoulement as binding customary law. Pochinki has clearly
expressed its interest to not be bound legally by the Refugee Convention.
63. It is pertinent to note that Pochinki will not be violating any international law if
it deports the illegal immigrants as it is not a signatory to the UN Refugees Convention
1951. Also, as previously mentioned, Pochinki has many times considered and rejected
the idea of being bound by the Convention. Indian courts only incorporate
international law via Article 51 when domestic law and policy are ‘ambiguous’.112
Therefore, Ponchinki courts would be hesitant indeed to enforce a customary norm that
clearly violated the measured policy of the nation.
4.5. ARTICLE 51 REMAINS A ‘DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLE’ AND IS NOT A MANDATORY RULE OF
GOVERNANCE.
64. Article 51 is a Directive Principle contained in Part IV of the Constitution of
Pochinki and likewise not enforceable upon the courts.113 Instead, Article 51 has
merely been a way for courts to construe legislative intent, assuming that Parliament
does not intend to violate international law unless given indications otherwise. The
courts do not operate under compulsion of law to effectuate the language of Article 51.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted that Article 51 is not a mandatory rule of
governance.
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 maintainable.
&
2. DECLARE, that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2017 is Constitutionally Invalid.
&
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. DECLARE, that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2017 is in violation of the Basic
Structure of the Constitution and therefore liable to be struck down as
unconstitutional.
&
4. DECLARE, that the Pochinki Government can deport all the Illegal Immigrants
who came after 24th March, 1971.
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 PETITIONER SHALL DUTY BOUND FOREVER PRAY.
1
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161 : AIR 1984 SC 802.
2 Janata Dal v. H.S. Choudhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305 : AIR 1993 SC 892.
3 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161 : AIR 1984 SC 802.
4
Moot Proposition 10
5 S.P. Gupta v. President of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87 : AIR 1982 SC 149.
6 V.G. Ramchandran, Law of Writs, 26 (6th ed., 2006).
7
Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665 : AIR 2005 SC 2920.
8 D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 SCC 378 : AIR 1987 SC 579.
9 Memorandum on behalf of the Petitioner.
10
Upendra Baxi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1986) 4 SCC 106 : AIR 1987 SC 191.
11 State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196.
12 Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 98 : AIR 1979 SC 1369.
13
Article 14, Constitution of India.
14 Article 21, Constitution of India.
15 Article 29(1), Constitution of India.
16
Assam Sanmilta Mahasangha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 1.
17 M. Janardhan Rao v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (2005) 2 SCC 324.
18
Memorandum on behalf of the Petitioner.
19
Mohini v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 3 SCC 666 : AIR 1992 SC 1858.
20 Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124.
21 K.K. Kouchunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725
22
Article 13(2), Constitution of India.
23 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 : AIR 1978 SC 597.
24Budhan Choudhry and Ors v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191; Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice
S.R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538; The State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad, (1974) 4
SCC 656 : AIR 1974 SC 1300.
25
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : AIR 2007 SC 71.
26 M.G. Badappanavar v. State of Karnataka, (2001) 2 SCC 666.
27 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 : AIR 1973 SC 1461.
28
Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386 : AIR 2000 SC 3689.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 Kangshari Haldar v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1960 SC 457.

30 Jaila Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1976) 1 SCC 602 : AIR 1975 SC 1436.
31
Madhu Limaye v. Superintendent, Tihar Jail, Delhi, (1975) 1 SCC 525.
32Zoroastrian Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. District Registrar, Cooperation. Societies (Urban), (2005)
5 SCC 632.
33 Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 : AIR 1973 SC 1461.
34
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2017, Section 2 and Section 3.
35 The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2017.
36
John Vallamattom v. Union of India, (2003) 6 SCC 611.
37
Comptroller & Auditor General of India v. Kamlesh Vadilal Mehta, (2003) 2 SCC 349 : AIR 2003 SC 1096.
38 John Vallamattom v. Union of India, (2003) 6 SCC 611
39
Indian Citizenship Act, 1955.
40
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2017, Section 3.
41 Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 613 : AIR 1990 SC 1480.
42
Article 13(2), Constitution of India.
43
44 A.K. Bindal v. Union of India, (2003) 5 SCC 163.
45
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545 : AIR 1986 SC 180.
46
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 : AIR 1978 SC 597.
47 Francis Coralie v. Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608.
48 CERC v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42
49 Centre for Environment and Food Security v. Union of India, (2011) 5 SCC 676
50
Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Admn., (1992) 4 SCC 99
51
Centre for Environment and Food Security v. Union of India, (2011) 5 SCC 676.
52 Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar R. Nandkarni, (1983) 1 SCC 124 : 1983 SCR (1) 828.
53 Moot Proposition 9
55 Article 39(a), Constitution of India.
56
57 Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645 : AIR 1993 SC 2178.
58
Election Commission of India v. St. Mary's School, (2008) 2 SCC 390.
59 D.D. Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, 393 (15th ed., 2018).
60 Javed v. State of Haryana, (2003) 8 SCC 369 : AIR 2003 SC 3057.
61 Municipal Corporation v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, AIR 2012 SC 100.
63
Article 355, the Constitution of India.
64
Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India & Anr, (2005) 5 SCC 665 : AIR 2005 SC 2920.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
65
Id.
67 H.S. Jain v. Union of India, (1997) 1 UPBLEC 594.
68 Article 29(1), Constitution of India.

69 T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481.
70
Moot Proposition 3
72 Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India & Anr, (2005) 5 SCC 665 : AIR 2005 SC 2920
73
Jagdev Singh Sidhhanti v. Pratap Singh Dulta, 1964 6 SCR 750
74Id., Rama Rao, V.R.V Sree v. Telegudesam Political Party, AIR 1983 AP 96 ¶15; Sidhirajbhai Sabhai v. State of
Gujarat, AIR 1963 SC 540
75 UN General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007)
76 Waman Rao v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 362 : AIR 1981 SC 271.
77 L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 : AIR 1997 SC 1125.
78 Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2005) 3 SCC 551.
79 Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 1 : AIR 2012 SC 3445.
80 Namit Sharma v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 745 (800).

81 I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 SCC 1
82 State of West Bengal v. Committee For Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571.
83 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.

84
Id., 292
85 Supra., 582
86 S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1

87 Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ram Das Mehra, (1976) 2 SCC 17.
88 State of Karnataka v. Praveen Bhai Thogadia, (2004) 4 SCC 684 : AIR 2004 SC 2081.
89 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225
90 Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain, (1975) 4 SCC 428 : 1975 SCR (3) 333
91
B.R. Kapoor v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2001) 7 SCC 231.
92 State of Karnataka v. Union of India & Anr, (1977) 3 SCC 592 : AIR 1977 SC 1361
93 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, 2018 SCC Online SC 1350.
94 National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438.
95
State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC 310 : AIR 1976 SC 490
96
Joseph Shine v. Union of India, 2018 SCC Online SC 1676.
98
Tapan K Bose, Protection of Refugees in South Asia: The Need for a Legal Framework (2000)
99 Mahendra P Singh, V.N. Shukla's Constitution of India, 207 (12th ed., 1990).
100 State of Arunchal Pradesh v. Khudiram Chakma, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 615.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
101
Omar Chaudhary, Turning Back: An Assessment of Non-Refoulement under Indian Law, 39 Economic and
Political Weekly, 3257 (2004), https://www.jstor.org/stable/4415288 last seen on 15/02/2019.
102
Durga Das Basu, Constitutional Law of India 39-40 (1991).
103 Nilabati v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746 : AIR 1993 SC 1960
104
The Chairman, Railway Board & Ors v. Mrs. Chandrima Das & Ors, (2002) 2 SCC 465
105
Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1975) 2 SCC 148.
106Mohammed Sadiq v. Government of India, (Civil Rule Writ No 405/98); Khadija v. Union of India (Crl WP No
658
Sarbonanda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665 : AIR 2005 SC 2920; State of Arunchal Pradesh v.
107
Khudiram Chakma, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 615

108Louis De Radt v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 554 : AIR 1991 SC 1886; Khudiram Chakma v. Union of India,
1994 Supp (1) SCC 615 : AIR 1994 SC 1461.
110
Article 38(1)(b), Statue of the International Court of Justice.
111 Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241.
112 Durga Das Basu, Constitutional Law of India 133 (1991)
113
Razakbhai Issakbhai Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 659
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 Petitioner Nlujaa Vox Anatolis National Navishaba1860 Hpnluacin 20230611 174944 1 19

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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 Petitioner Nlujaa Vox Anatolis National Navishaba1860 Hpnluacin 20230611 174944 1 19

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Sunday, June 11, 2023

1st NLUJAA Vox Anatolis National Moot, 2019

In the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pochinki

4.4. Inapplicability of Customary International Law to Non- 18

Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narai 14

Indian Law, 39 Economic and Political Weekly, 3257 (2004),

procedure established by law.

Section 3 of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2017, are making an unreasonable

accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.63

of any kind to remain in Pochinki and they are liable to be deported.

29 Kangshari Haldar v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1960 SC 457.

68 Article 29(1), Constitution of India.

80 Namit Sharma v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 745 (800).

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

86 S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1

Khudiram Chakma, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 615

You might also like