Memorial Intra Final

13Th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020
TEAM CODE- 1320R76
13th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020
BEFORE
THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF REPUBLIC OF MOSIS
W.P. (C) No.______ 23 of 2019
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF REPUBLIC OF MOSIS
IN THE MATTER OF
HUMAN RIGHT SOCIETY FOR THE WELFARE MUSLIM MIGRANTS OF AMREK &
OTHERS……………………………………………………………………………………PETITIONER
V.
UNION OF MOSIS & PROVINCE OF

AMREK………………………….……………………………………………………….. RESPONDENTS
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

0
-TABLE OF CONTENTS-
-TABLE OF CONTENTS-…………………………………………………………………………………1
-TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS-………………………………………………………………………….2
-INDEX OF AUTHORITIES-……………………………………………………………………………...5
-STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION-……………………………………………………………………...8
-STATEMENT OF FACTS-………………………………………………………………………………..9
-ISSUES RAISED-………………………………………………………………………………………...11
-SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS-………………………………………………………………………...12
-ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-…………………………………………………………………………...14
1. WHETHER SEC 2(1)(B) AND 6B OF AMENDMENT ACT IS ULTRA VIRES TO ART 14 AND
21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOSIS?......................................................14
1.1 SEC2(1)(B) AND 6B IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14

1.1.1 THE AMENDMENT ACT PASSES THE TWIN TEST OF REASONABLENESS
1.3 THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
2. WHETHER SEC 2 (1)(B) AND 6B OF AMENDMENT ACT DOES VIOLATES

‘SECULARISM’ OF THE STATE?.................................................................................................19
2.1 CAA AND SECULARISM
3. WHETHER THERE IS VIOLATION OF MUSLIM ILLEGAL MIGRANTS’ RIGHT TO

EQUAL AND NON- DISCRIMINATORY PROTECTION?........................................................20
3.1 PROVIDES EQUAL AND NON- DISCRIMINATORY PROTECTION

1
3.2 THE SAID IMMIGRANTS ENJOY PROTECTION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
4. WHETHER CAA IS CONTRARY TO AMREK PACT?..............................................................21
5. WHY ARE NON-MUSLIM ILLEGAL MIGRANTS FROM UNITED STATES OF SIMACK

AND REPUBLIC OF MAVRICK NOT COVERED IN THE AMENDMENT ACT?................22
.
5.1 REPUBLIC OF MOSIS HAS THE RIGHT TO ENSURE THE SECURITY OF ITS OWN PEOPLE
6. WHETHER CAA IS CONTRARY TO REFUGEE CONVENTION 1951?.................................23
-PRAYER-………………………………………………………………………………………….............25

2
-TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS-
& And
AIR All India Report
All. Allahabad
Art Article
Bom Bombay
Cal Calcutta
Del Delhi
Govt. Government
HC High Court
Ltd. Limited
MP Madhya Pradesh
Ors Others

3
Pvt. Private
Sec Section
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Case
SCJ Supreme Court Journal
TN Tamil Nadu
UOI Union of India
V. Versus

4
-INDEX OF AUTHORITIES-
STATUTES
❖ Article 5, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950

❖ Section 2, CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2019
❖ FOREIGNERS ACT, 1946
❖ THE FOREIGNERS ORDER, 1948
❖ THE REGISTERATION OF FOREIGNERS ACT, 1939
❖ PASSPORT (ENTRY INTO INDIA) ACT,1967
ARTICLES
❖ Cody M Poplin, Throwback Thursday: The Indo-Bangladesh Enclaves and The Indian Constitution,
Reprise, LAWFARE (August 11, 2019)
❖ Minorities Under International Law, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (July
25, 2019)

5
JOURNALS
❖ K. K. Nigam, Due Process of Law: A Comparative Study Of Procedural Guarantees Against

Deprivation of Personal Liberty In The United States And India, Volume 4 JOURNAL OF THE
INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE 99(1962)
❖ Karamdep Saini, relationship between international and municipal law: a case study of India,
volume 3 issue 2 INTERNATIONAL JOURNALS OF ADVANCED RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT 633(2018)
CASES
INDIAN CASES
1. Anwar v. State of J & K, 1971 AIR 337………………………………………………………….17

2. Arunachal Pradesh v. Khudiram Chakma, AIR 1994 SC 1461…………………………………...17
3. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar R. Nandkami, (1983) 1 SCC 124……...17
4. Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1996) 2 SCC 549……………………………………..17
5. Chaudhari And Others V Union of India, Air 2004 Sc 2212………………………………….….15
6. Chiranjeet Lal V. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41………………………………………………14
7. David John Hopkins V. UOI & Ors, AIR 1997 mad 366…………………………………………16
8. Francis Coralie v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608………………….17
9. G. Sundarajan v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 620 ……………………………………………..20
10. Hans Muller Of Nurenburg v. Superintendent,1955 AIR 367, 1955 SCR (1)1284…………….…17
11. In Re Kerala Education Bill v. Unknown, AIR 1958 SC 956..……………………………………20
12. Izhar Ahmad Khan v. UOI, 1962 AIR 105 ………………………………………………….……18
13. Laxmi Khandsari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1981) 2 SCC 600…………………………………..14
14. Louis De Raedt v. Union of India, 1991 AIR 1886, 1991 SCR (3) 149………………………….23
15. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248: AIR 1978 SC597,620…………………...16
16. Minerva Mills Limited v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 591…………………………………….17
17. Mohd. Javed v. Union of India, SCC OnLine Del 874……………………………………………20
18. Peoples' Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301: AIR 1997 SC 568….….17
19. RBI V. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd, (1996) 1SCC642(India)…….……….14
20. S. Jagadeesan v. UOI & Ors, AIR 1997 mad 366……….………………18
21. Salil Bali v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 705………………………………….………………..20
22. Sarabananda Sonwal v Union of India, A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 2920…………………………………...24
23. Shantisar Builders v. Narayan Khimlal Totame, (1990) 1 SCC 520: AIR 1990 SC 630..………..17
24. Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar 1958 AIR 538…………………………...…………15
25. State of UP & Ors. V. Shah Mohammad & Anr., 1969 AIR 1234, 1969 SCR (3)1006….……….18
26. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75……………………………….…….16
27. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Kerala, (2002) 8 SCC 481: AIR 2003 SC 355……….………15
28. The State of West Bengal v. Anwar All Sarkar Habib, 1952 SCR 284………….…………….…15
29. Union of India V. MV Vallliappan (1999) 6 SCC 259 (India)……………………………………15

6
30. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647. ………………………..20
31. Vincent v. Union of India, (1987) 2 SCC 165: AIR 1987 SC 990.: AIR 1983 SC 109…………17
INTERNATIONAL CASES
1. Al-Kateb v Godwin [2004] HCA 37 (AUSTRALIA)………………………………………18

2. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Kaur (Case C192-99) [2001] All ER (EC)
250 (UK)…………………………………………………………………………………….17
BOOKS
❖ M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: WITH CONSTITUTIONAL DOCUMENTS (6TH

Edition, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur,2010)
❖ DURGA DAS BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (AR Lakshmanan, V.R. Manohar &
Bhagabai Prosad Banerjee Ed.,14th Edition, Lexis Nexis,2009)
❖ SAMARDITYA PAL, INDIA’S CONSTITUTION ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION (Lexis Nexis,
2014)
❖ CITIZENS’ RIGHTS AND THE RULE OF LAW: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS (Venkat Lyer
Ed.,2008)
❖ DURGA DAS BASU, HUMAN RIGHTS IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (S.R. Bhansali 3rd Edition,
Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur,2008)
❖ S.P. GUPTA, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS (1st Edition, Allahabad Law
Agency,2009)
❖ THE USE OF FOREIGN PRECEDENTS BY CONSTITUTIONAL JUDGES (Tania Groppi &
Marie-Claire ponthoreau, 2013)
LEGAL DATABASES
❖ www.Manupatra.com
❖ www.SCCOnline.com
❖ www.Westlaw.com
❖ www.HeinOnline.com
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS REFERRED
❖ Agreement between Govt. of India and Ceylon (1964); Status & Future of persons of Indian origin
in Ceylon
❖ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1976
❖ Nehru- Liaquat Agreement, 1950
❖ United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007
❖ United Nations Refugee Convention, 1951
❖ United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2009

7
-STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION-
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Republic of Mosis exercises jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate the
present suit under Article 32 of the Constitution of Republic of Mosis.
The provision under which the respondent has approached this Hon’ble court and to which the
respondent humbly submit is read herein under as:
“32. 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.”

8
-STATEMENT OF FACTS-
➢ The Republic of Mosis is the second most populated and highly diverse country in the world. It is
also the third largest country in terms of area and the fourth fastest growing economy. The Central
government has primacy and exclusive jurisdiction over certain matters which include defence,
external affairs, etc. The country has no state religion and follows secularism as its entrenched
idea in its Constitution. The population is a mix of different religions like Orthodox Christian,
Protestant, Muslim, Roman Catholic and other traditional beliefs. However, Christian is dominant
religion there. Historically, it has been recipient of migrants across the world because of ample
opportunities of trade and commerce. It has also received people who have faced persecution
based on their religions from its neighbouring countries. It has been the destination for migrants
and refugees from its neighbouring countries which include, Republic of Bhuman and Osholand in
northeast, United Provinces of Bismark and Republic of Ikra in northwest, Republic of Mavrick in
southwest and United States of Simack in south.
➢ Amrek is the north-eastern province of Republic of Mosis and shares borders with neighbouring
countries namely Republic of Bhuman and Osholand. Its demographic structure is basically mixed of
different religions like Orthodox Christian, Protestant, Muslim. However, Christian is dominant
religion there. Historically, Amrek has been destination for cross border migration of people from
the region of Osholand for the purpose of trade and commerce via river. People from Osholand also
married to the local people in Amrek. Prior to declaring its independence on 25th January 1971,
Osholand was a colony of the United Provinces of Bismark for a period of almost 15 years. Over
long period of time, the Bismark armed forces reportedly committed atrocities and human rights
violation on Osholian people. It resulted in violent clash between Osholian protestors and armed
forces of Bismark. The forces retaliated heavily and compelled the protestors to flee across the
border into Amrek in Republic of Mosis. The illegal migrants mostly belong to Muslim religion
and they have affected cultural and social fabric of Amrek society. The AIPU protested and
demanded that they must be deported to their country. There was an agreement between the AIPU
and other organizations, Provincial government and Central government on the issues related to
illegal migrants. The agreement is also known as Amrek Pact 1975.
➢ Accordingly, Republic of Mosis Citizenship Act was amended on May 23rd, 1980 to include Section
6-A, which read as follows:
(1) Any illegal migrant of Osholand origin, who entered the state of Amrek from the territory of the
Republic of Osholand on or before 24th January 1975, shall be deemed to be a citizen of Mosis.
(2) Illegal Migrants who came to Amrek on or after 24th January 1975shall continue to be detected,
and deported in accordance with law. Immediate and practical steps shall be taken to expel such
migrants.
(3) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this section, the provisions of this section shall have
effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force.”

9
➢ Accordingly, the central government of Republic of Mosis enacted the Citizenship Rules 2003 for
making National Register of Citizens (NRC). Special provision concerning the province of Amrek
was inserted which required the Central Government to prepare NRC for the province. The provision
is given below:
a) “National Register of Citizen” means the Register containing details of
citizens of Republic of Mosis residing in the Province of Amrek, as mentioned in the National
Register of Citizen which was prepared along with 1951 census under a directive of the Ministry of
Home Affairs;
b) The District Magistrate shall cause to be published National Register of Citizens for People of
Amrek from electoral rolls up to the midnight of the 24th day of January, 1975 in each village and
ward.
➢ The provision provided a criterion consisting of cut-off date i.e. 24 January 1975 for determining as
who could be citizen to be included in the consolidated list of citizens. The central government
conducted the National Register of Citizen (NRC) on the basis cut-off date of 1975 for the province
of Amrek. People of the province were required to produce documents in support of their claim of
being citizen and not being illegal migrants.
➢ However, the Central Government of Republic of Mosis made an amendment in its Citizenship Act
1958 by inserting the following provision in the Act:
1. In the Citizenship Act in section 2, in sub-section (1), in clause (b), the following proviso shall be
inserted, namely:— "Provided that any person belonging to Orthodox Christian, Protestant, Roman
Catholic and other traditional beliefs community from Osholand, United Provinces of Bismark and
Republic of Ikra who entered into Republic of Mosis on or before the 31st day of December, 2010
shall not be treated as illegal migrant for the purposes of this Act.
2. As per newly inserted section 6B, the above category of People shall be deemed to be citizens of
Republic of Mosis from the date of his entry into the territory if granted certificate of registration or
certificate of naturalization subject to such conditions, restrictions and manner as may be prescribed.
➢ The amendment provided that illegal migrants belonging to specific religion namely Orthodox
Christian, Protestant, Roman Catholic and other traditional beliefs who entered into Republic of
Mosis from Osholand, United Provinces of Bismark and Republic of Ikraon or before the 31st day of
December, 2010 shall not be treated as illegal migrants and shall be eligible for Citizenship under the
Act. However, the Muslim illegal migrants who similarly entered into Republic of Mosis from the
specific countries and on or before the same time shall be treated illegal migrant and will be detected
and deported as per the law. The amendment in the Republic of Mosis Citizenship Act 1958 created
for among people of particular section of society.
➢ The statement and objects for amendment to Citizenship Act 1958 of Republic of Mosis state that
illegal migrants belonging to specific religion namely Orthodox Christian, Protestant, Roman
Catholic and other traditional beliefs who entered into Republic of Mosis from Osholand, United
Provinces of Bismark and Republic of Ikra on or before the 31st day of December, 2010 are minority
in the mentioned country and have faced persecution due to their faith and religious belief. The
specific illegal migrants are being given protection and eligibility to citizenship because they
have faced persecution due to their religions.

10
-ISSUES RAISED-
ISSUE 1
WHETHER REPUBLIC OF MOSIS CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT IS ULTRA VIRES TO

ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF REPUBLIC OF MOSIS?
ISSUE 2
WHETHER SEC 2(1)(B) AND 6B OF AMENDMENT ACT VIOLATES ‘SECULARISM’ OF THE STATE?
ISSUE 3
WHETHER THERE IS VIOLATION OF MUSLIM ‘ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHT TO

EQUAL AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY PROTECTION?
ISSUE 4
WHETHER CAA IS CONTRARY TO AMREK PACT?
ISSUE 5
WHY ARE NON- MUSLIM ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS FROM UNITED STATES OF SIMACK AND
REPUBLIC OF MAVRICK NOT COVERED IN THE AMENDMENT ACT?
ISSUE 6
WHETHER CAA IS CONTRARY TO REFUGEE CONVENTION 1951?

11
-SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS-
1.
Whether Sec 2 (1)(b) and 6B of amendment act is ultra vires to art 14 and 21 of the constitution of the
republic of Mosis?
It is humbly submitted that Section2(1)(b) and section 6 B of the Mosis citizenship amendment act is not in
violation of right to equality under article 14 and right to life under article 21 of the constitution of Mosis.
The section does not violate the Article 14, as it passes the test of reasonability which includes that the
section is based on intelligible differentia and there is a rational nexus with the objective sought. Hence the
section 2(1)(b) and 6B of Republic of Mosis is constitutional.
2.
Whether Sec 2 (1)(b) and 6B of amendment act violates ‘secularism’ of the state?
It is humbly submitted that Sec 2(1)(b) and 6(b) of amendment ac is not in violation of secularism of the
state. The three Islamic Republics mentioned in the Act have Islam as a state religion in their constitution
itself, there is a problem faced by minorities and a narrow-tailored act to address the problem is not against
the secular nature of Indian Constitution. Exclusion has been done by the government for two reasons -
Muslims in those states are not minorities there. Secondly, they have got protection of the Constitution
because those countries have declared themselves as Islamic states.
3.
Whether there is Violation of Muslim ‘illegal immigrants’ right to equal and non- discriminatory
protection?
It is humbly submitted that the amendment made in the act is to include the “persecuted minorities” in the
three Islamic states. The religious minorities given protection under the amendment act face atrocities and
their human rights are violated in those countries. This is the only basis of distinction between Muslim
illegal migrants and illegal migrants of other religious communities. Thus, there is no discrimination rather a
reasonable classification made by the central govt. as stated above in the first issue.
4.
Whether CAA is contrary to Amrek Pact?
The government of Mosis understands that illegal immigration could end up transforming the very character
and demography of Mosis. New citizenship act has sufficient safeguards to protect the interest of the native
people of Amrek. It is only those who have lived for decades in this country who can apply for citizenship.

12
These applications will then be examined, and only if they are found to be valid, they will be given
citizenship
The Citizenship Amendment Act will in no way adversely affect Amrek's indigenous population of because
the Centre has already framed rules for protecting interests of the Amrekian people. The Centre is
committed to implement the recommendations of the Committee on Amrek pact Clause Six for giving
constitutional safeguards to the indigenous Amrekians.
5.
Why are non- Muslim illegal migrants from United States of Simack and Republic of Mavrick not
covered in the amendment act?
It is humbly submitted that persecution of Simacki Tamils, both Hindus and Muslims, is for ethnic and
political reasons –factors not addressed by the CAA, which focuses on religious persecution. The Rohingyas
are an ethnic community who are considered by to be immigrants coming from Republic of Mavrick. There
have been multiple reports by intelligence agencies of exploitation of Rohingya extremism by United
Provinces of Bismark Inter-Services Intelligence. The republic of Mosis has the right to ensure the security
of its own people and thus, they do not come under the ambit of CAA.
6.
Whether CAA is contrary to refugee convention 1951?
It is humbly submitted that Mosis has given shelter to thousands of refugees and asylum seekers, despite not
signing the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. Currently, there are 31,000 refugees and asylum seekers from
such countries as Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Republic of Ikra, Republic of Mavrick, the Democratic Republic of
Congo, Eritrea and others. Those refugees not covered under the CAA will continue to be protected by
Mosis’ ad hoc refugee policy.

13
-ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-
1. WHETHER SEC 2(1)(B) AND 6B OF AMENDMENT ACT IS ULTRA VIRES TO ART 14

AND 21 OF THECONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOSIS?
Article 14: Equality before law
• Equality before law: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory of India.
• The said Article is clearly in two parts – while it commands the State not to deny to any person
‘equality before law’, it also commands the State not to deny the ‘equal protection of the laws’.
Equality before law prohibits discrimination. It is a negative concept. The concept of ‘equal
protection of the laws’ requires the State to give special treatment to persons in different
situations in order to establish equality amongst all. It is positive in character. Therefore, the
necessary corollary to this would be that equals would be treated equally, whilst un-equals would
have to be treated unequally. Laws apply equally to all persons equally circumstanced.1
1.1.1 THE AMENDMENT ACT PASSES THE TWIN TEST OF REASONABLENESS
• The Constitution, acknowledging that inequalities exist in society and providing equal treatment to
unequal persons lead to injustice, permits a state action which is discriminatory provided that such
differentiation is based on an ‘intelligible differentia’ and such differentiation has a reasonable nexus
with the objective sought to be achieved by the state action. It has been held by the apex court that
equal treatment of unequal is not liable to be struck down as discriminatory unless there is a
simultaneous absence of a rational relation to the object instead to be achieved by law.2 If the
classification is made on a reasonable basis, the legislature can deal with two sets of individuals.
This means that collectively grouped persons or things make a properly defined, distinct class and
may be exceptional from those left out of the group. Furthermore, this classification basis must have
a rational nexus to the object that the legislation in question seeks to achieve.3 It should not be
arbitrary, artificial or evasive. It should be based on an intelligible differentia, some real and
1
Chiranjeet Lal V. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41
2
RBI V. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd, (1996) 1 SCC 642
3
Laxmi Khandsari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1981) 2 SCC 600

14
substantial distinction, which distinguishes persons or things grouped together in the class from
others left out of it.4
Article 135 of the constitution forbids class legislation but it does not prohibit the reasonable classification of
objects, persons, and transactions for the purpose so as to achieve specific ends by the parliament. It must
bear a reasonable and just relation to the sought object which is to be achieved by the legislation.
Classification of reasonableness has conditions as mentioned in the case of Saurabh Chaudhari v Union Of
India6. A reasonable classification is not only permitted but also necessary for the society to progress.
However, the Courts in a number of judgements have held that a classification among persons is permissible
only if it is reasonable7.
It is humbly submitted that when the validity of legislation is challenged on the ground of violation of article
14, each case has to be examined independently in the context of Article 14, and not by applying any general
rule. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed:
“It is settled law that differentiation is not always discriminatory. If there is a rational nexus on the basis of
which differentiation has been made with the object sought to be achieved by particular provision, then such
differentiation is not discriminatory and does not violate the principles of article 14 of the constitution.” 8
The propositions laid in Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar9, explains the true scope and meaning to the
right to equality and holds a valid classification.
Equality, which is guaranteed by Article 14 of the Indian constitution, doesn’t mean that the condition of every
individual is the same. If that were so, there would have been no special rights for the tribal, Dalits and the
religious minorities. The Republic of Mosis is not discriminating between the religions but is rather organising
the religious communities on the basis of “reasonable classification”.
Osholand, United Provinces of Bismark and Republic of Ikra are Islamic states and other religions forms a
minority in them. These religious communities are also “persecuted minorities” in these countries.
4
The State of West Bengal v. Anwar All Sarkar Habib, 1952 SCR 284.
5
INDIA CONST. art 13
6
Saurabh Chaudhari And Others v. Union of India, AIR 2004 Sc 2212
7
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Kerala, (2002) 8 SCC 481: AIR 2003 SC 355
8
Union of India v. MV Vallliappan, (1999) 6 SCC 259
9
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar, 1958 AIR 538

15
Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the said Act does uphold the test of reasonable classification and nexus
with the object of the Act, and does not violate the spirit of Article 14.10
“ For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the Government of India have got unrestricted power
to refuse citizenship without assigning any reason whatsoever and the appellant being a foreign national
cannot claim equal rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India with that of the Indian Nationals.”
11
1.2 SEC 2(1)(B) AND 6B ARE NOT IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21
It is most respectfully submitted that the amendment brought into citizenship act is not violative of Article
2112. Article 21, through couched in negative language, confer every person the fundamental right to life and
personal liberty which has become an exhaustible source of many rights.13.The communities mentioned in the
CAA are the minorities of the three countries Osholand, United Provinces of Bismark and Republic of Ikra.
The act is for the religiously persecuted minorities in these countries. The Act does not block other
communities from being naturalized. General rules which are already in place still apply to all other
communities seeking general asylum.
CAA has “religious persecution” as the basis of the act and seeks to aid the religiously persecuted in the three
countries. Then the Muslim community being the majority in the three countries cannot claim persecution
under the CAA. Thus, Muslims do feature in the act. The Muslims can seek asylum and apply for citizenship
under the existing rules and the CAA do not in any way interfere in this process.
Article 21 of the Constitution is about protection of life and personal liberty:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by
law.”
This is read with Article 19 (1) (e) of the Constitution that restricts a foreigner from residing and settling in
India. Article 1914 speaks of protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech:
“All citizens shall have the right
- to freedom of speech and expression;
- to assemble peaceably and without arms;
10
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75.
11
Daivid John Hopkins vs The Union Of India And Others, AIR 1997 Mad 366
12
INDIA CONST. art 21
13
BHAGWAT, J. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248: AIR 1978 SC 597,620
14
INDIA CONST. art 19

16
- to form associations or unions;
- to move freely throughout the territory of India;
- to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
- to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business”
“The court distinguished the case of Kaur on the grounds that, since she had not met the definition of a
national of the United Kingdom, she could not be deprived of rights which she had never enjoyed. , it does
not become a right until the freedom which it presupposes has taken effect and a special provision on the
matter has been adopted."15
Reverting to the fundamental right claimable by the petitioner who is not a citizen of India it is clear
that Art. 20 of the Constitution is not attracted to this case. Article 21 merely lays down that no person shall
be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.16
This is conferred by article 21 which is in the following terms: "No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law". Entries 9, 10, 17, 18 and 19 in the Union
List confer wide powers on the Centre to make laws about among other things, admission into and expulsion
from India, about extradition and aliens and about preventive detention connected with foreign affairs.
Therefore, the right to make laws about the extradition of aliens and about their expulsion from the land is
expressly conferred; also, it is to be observed that extradition and expulsion are contained in separate, entries
indicating that though they may overlap in certain aspects, they are different and distinct subjects.17
The Hon'ble Court has implied a whole bundle of human rights out of Article 21 by interpreting it along
with the Directive Principles of State Policy,18 and international charters on Human Rights19.It encompasses
the right to live with dignity,20right to food, water and decent environment,21 right to livelihood,22
shelter,23good health,24. The Amendment is securing these basic amenities by providing citizenship to them.
1.3 THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Under Article 1125 of the Constitution, the Parliament is vested with the power to make any provisions with
respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matter relating to citizenship.
With regards to the first line of contention, in the case of State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Khudiram
Chakma26, the Supreme Court has held that,
15
R V Secretary of State for The Home Department, Ex P Kaur (Case C192-99) [2001] All ER (EC) 250
16
Anwar V. State of J & K, 1971 AIR 337
17
Hans Muller Of Nurenburg Vs Superintendent, 1955 AIR 367, 1955 SCR (1)1284
18
Minerva Mills Limited V. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 591.
19
Peoples' Union of Civil Liberties V. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301: AIR 1997 SC 568.
20
Francis Coralie V. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608.
21
Chameli Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1996) 2 SCC 549.
22
Board of Trustees of The Port of Bombay V. Dilipkumar R. Nandkami, (1983) 1 SCC 124.
23
Shantisar Builders V. Narayan Khimlal Totame, (1990) 1 SCC 520: AIR 1990 SC 630.
24
Vincent V. Union of India, (1987) 2 SCC 165: AIR 1987 SC 990.: AIR 1983 SC 109.
25
INDIA CONST. Art. 11.
26
Arunachal Pradesh V. Khudiram Chakma, AIR 1994 SC 1461.

17
“The decision regarding settlement of foreigners is a matter of policy. It is well-settled in law that the Court
does not interfere in a matter of governmental policy since it is for the Government to decide.”
So far as the petitioner is concerned, on any account, it cannot be said that he has got a right to get
citizenship of this country, it is only a privilege that can be confirmed on him by the action of either the
prescribed authority or the Govt. of India. Of course, the Citizenship Act governs and the procedure that
should be followed in dealing with the application for registration for the Indian citizenship. No
foreigner can have a fundamental right or much less a right to register himself as Indian citizen. If that
would be the position, then no right of the foreigner, like the petitioner is involved and as such it is not
open to the petitioner to challenge the provisions of the enactment as ultra vires of the Constitution of
India.27
The power to make amendment in provisions of Citizenship Act is not fettered by Articles 5-10 of the
constitution28 and it is competent for Parliament, in exercise of this power under Article 11, to take away
citizenship already acquired under the earlier article.29
Article 11, however, makes it clear that Parliament has the power to make any provision with respect to the
acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship. The Parliament could
thus regulate the right of citizenship by law. As pointed out in the above decision of this Court it would be
open to the Parliament to affect the rights of citizens and the provisions made by the Parliamentary statute
cannot be impeached on the ground that they are inconsistent with the provisions contained in other Articles,
in Part II of the Constitution. The Act has been enacted under the powers of the Parliament preserved by Art.
11 in express terms.30
“In Australia, the constitutional context is as follows. The Parliament, subject to the Constitution, has power
to make laws with respect to naturalization and aliens (s 51(xix)), and immigration and emigration (s
51(xxvii)). The qualification, subject to the Constitution, directs attention to Ch III, concerning judicial
power and courts, and the separation of powers which is part of the structure of the Constitution.
The court distinguished the case of Kaur on the grounds that, since she had not met the definition of a
national of the United Kingdom, she could not be deprived of rights which she had never enjoyed. ”31
2. WHETHER SEC 2 (1)(B) AND 6B OF AMENDMENT ACT VIOLATES ‘SECULARISM’

OF THE STATE?
2.1 CAA AND SECULARISM
The three Islamic Republics mentioned in the have Islam as a state religion in their constitution itself, there
is a problem faced by minorities and a narrow-tailored act to address the problem is not against the secular
nature of Constitution of Mosis.
27
S. Jagadeesan, J., David John Hopkins v. UOI &Ors, AIR 1997 mad 366
28
INDIA CONST. Art 5-10
29
Izhar Ahmad Khan v. UOI, 1962 AIR 1052
30
State of UP & Ors. V. Shah Mohammad & Anr., 1969 AIR 1234, 1969 SCR (3)1006
31
Al-Kateb v Godwin [2004] HCA 37

18
Exclusion has been done by the government for two reasons –Firstly, Muslims in those states are not
minorities there. Secondly, they have got protection of the Constitution because those countries have
declared themselves as Islamic states.
The NRC is about detection of illegal immigrants, people who entered Mosis illegally for economic reasons,
while the CAA grants citizenship to certain refugees who came to Mosis on or before December 31,
2010.Saying that the NRC is a process to throw out Muslim immigrants – not Christian immigrants, who are
now saved by the CAA – is not right, as the citizenship won’t be granted automatically. Immigrants
belonging to these 6 religious communities who came after 2010 won’t be eligible for that safety net.
Significantly, the NRC is based on the two acts – the Foreigners Act of 1946 and the Passport (Entry into
India) Act of 1920 – that are mandated to detect, detain and deport any illegal foreigner. CAA neither alters
nor challenges rights of any citizen, irrespective of religion, caste, creed, sect, ethnicity or race.
3. WHETHER THERE IS VIOLATION OF MUSLIM ‘ILLEGAL MIGRANTS’ RIGHT TO

EQUAL AND NON- DISCRIMINATORY PROTECTION?
3.1 PROVIDES EQUALITY AND NON- DISCRIMINATORY PROTECTION
The amendment made in the act is to include the “persecuted minorities” in the three Islamic states. The
religious minorities given protection under the amendment act face atrocities and their human rights are
violated in those countries. True, there have been persecutions of Shiites, Ahmadis, Hazaras or Balochis in
these three countries, particularly in united provinces of Bismark, where Ahmadis are not even recognized by
that country’s Islamic constitution as Muslims. But these persecutions are mainly for ethnic or political
reasons, not necessarily religious – the purview of the CAA. Whether United Provinces of Bismark recognizes
them or not, Mosis regards Ahmadis as Muslims. Importantly, both Shiites and Ahmadis, just like the
dominant Sunnis, regard Allah as the only true God and the Quran as their main authoritative text. It is not up
to the republic of Mosis to interfere in the sharp sectarian divisions present within the Islamic world. This is
the only basis of distinction between Muslim illegal migrants and illegal migrants of other religious
communities. Thus, there is no discrimination rather a reasonable classification made by the central govt. as
stated above in the first issue.
The amendment act is not about the exclusion of any religious community. Rather, it is about inclusion of
the persecuted minorities in these three countries. There is no provision of excluding “Muslims” from the
act.
This law gives “group as being entitled to citizenship” versus “individual citizenship”. Act identifies 3
groups and does not take away citizenship right of any individual from these 3 countries to apply for:
• Asylum and

19
• Refuge in the country.

The primary distinction in the act is that it is not meant for the “exclusion” of any community but for the
“inclusion” of some based on reasonable classification. The power to make amendment in provisions of
Citizenship Act is not fettered by Articles 5-1032 of the constitution and it is competent for Parliament, in
exercise of this power under Article 1133, to take away citizenship already acquired under the earlier article.
‘Though in India, the rights and security of the minorities have been continuously and effectively
safeguarded, Pakistan has persistently contravened the provisions of the Pact through consistent neglect and
harassment of the members of the minority community. Instances of such violations started coming to notice
almost immediately after the inception of the Pact. Both Pakistan and Bangladesh failed to protect religious
minorities after Partition and claimed that the government was correcting the historical wrong by offering
citizenship to the religious minority refugees from these countries.’34
3.2 THE SAID IMMIGRANTS ENJOY PROTECTION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
The Art 51(c) of the Constitution directs the state to ‘endeavour’ to inter alia, ‘foster respect for international
law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with another’. The DPSP’s are fundamental
in the governance of the country.35 They have to be harmoniously interpreted with the fundamental rights.36
The Courts have sought to interpret various judgments of foreign courts by way of internalizing them in
domestic law and test the constitutionality of the laws in Juxtaposition with those treaties.37 They even direct
the Parliament to give effect to treaties they are party to.38 Treaties, to which India is not a party to, have
also been recognized by the Courts.39 As with treaties, the courts also appear to be inclined to incorporate
international customary law.40
Our state is party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’, for short) adopted by
the General Assembly of the United Nations on 19.12.1966. Mosis is bound to secure that there are no
attacks on honour of immigrants, protection of the fundamental group and society. It is humbly submitted
that we must also remind ourselves that our country is party to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights ('ICCPR', for short) adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 19.12.1966,
whereof read as under:41
It is humbly submitted that an alien lawfully in the territory of a Mosis may be expelled there from only in
pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and be allowed to submit the reasons against his
expulsion and to have his case reviewed by the competent authority.42 Right to the protection of the law
against unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on
32
INDIA CONST. Art 5-10
33
INDIA CONST. Art 11
34
Nehru- Liaquat Pact, 1950
35
INDIA CONST. art. 37; Austin Granville, The Indian Constitution: Corner Stone of a Nation, (2 ed., 1967).
36
In Re Kerala Education Bill v. Unknown, AIR 1958 SC 956.
37
Salil Bali v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 705.
38
People's Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 433
39
G. Sundarajan v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 620
40
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647.
41
Mohd. Javed v. Union of India, SCC OnLine Del 8741
42
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 13.

20
his honour and reputation should be provided.43 The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of
society and is entitled to protection by society and the State of Mosis.44
4. WHETHER CAA IS CONTRARY TO AMREK PACT?
The provisions of the Pact are given below:
a) The Central government of the Republic of Mosis will make necessary amendment to grant citizenship to
illegal migrants who entered the province of Amrek from Osholand prior to 24 January 1975.
b) Illegal Migrants from Osholand entered in the Amrek province after 24 January 1975 shall be detected,
deported from the territory and country as per the law.
c) Necessary measures would be taken for detection, and deportation of illegal migrants who entered and
have been living in Amrek after 24 January 1975, as per the law.
d) So detected illegal migrants will be registered to be so in accordance with the provisions of the Foreigners
Act of the country. Accordingly, Foreigners Tribunal was established in the state for detection and
deportation of illegal migrants.
It provides for citizenship provision to some illegal immigrants. Also, not every illegal migrant belonging to
the protected communities would be granted citizenship. Their applications would be scrutinised and if they
fulfil the criterion of citizenship then only, they would be granted citizenship. One must not forget the
difference between illegal immigrants and religiously persecuted refugees, people who were forced to leave
their homelands just for practicing their own religion. The main purpose of the CAA is to give a legal
identity to these ill-fated nationless folks. The Republic of Mosis respects and follow the international
conventions and principles on human rights. The government understands that illegal migration could end
up transforming the very character and demography of Mosis. New citizenship act has sufficient safeguards
to protect the interest of the native people of Assam. It is only those who have lived for decades in this
country who can apply for citizenship. These applications will then be examined, and only if they are found
to be valid, they will be given citizenship
The Citizenship Amendment Act will in no way adversely affect Amrek's indigenous population of because
the Centre has already framed rules for protecting interests of the Amrekian people. The Centre is
committed to implement the recommendations of the Committee on Amrek Pact Clause Six for giving
constitutional safeguards to the indigenous Amrekian.
43
44

21
5. WHY ARE NON- MUSLIM ILLEGAL MIGRANTS FROM UNITED STATES OF SIMACK
AND REPUBLIC OF MAVRICK NOT COVERED IN THE AMENDMENT ACT?
Tamils in Republic of Maverick were not persecuted for their religion. The Rohingyas of United States of
Simack are excluded because the country does not have a state religion like Osholand, United Provinces of
Bismark and Republic of Ikra. Thus, the country does not come under the ambit of CAA.
The Rohingyas are an ethnic community who are considered by Osholand to be immigrants from republic of
Mavrick. Osholand’s prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, herself regards the Rohingya refugees as a threat
to her country and the region.
There have been multiple reports by intelligence agencies of exploitation of Rohingya extremism by United
Provinces of Bismark Inter-Services Intelligence. In 2017, a brutal massacre of 99 members of the Hindu
Rohingya minority in Rakhine was carried out by radical Rohingya Muslim groups, as reported by the
British Broadcasting Corporation. Also, there were reports of forced conversions of Hindu Rohingya in
the Osholand refugee camps.
5.1 REPUBLIC OF MOSIS HAS THE RIGHT TO ENSURE THE SECURITY OF ITS OWN
PEOPLE
It is humbly submitted that one mustn’t forget that the republic of Mosis has the right to ensure the security
of its own people. That’s why even Rohingya Hindus who themselves are trapped between Muslim
extremists and the Republic of Mavrick army are also not included in the CAA.
Persecution of Simacki Tamils, both Hindus and Muslims, is also for ethnic and political reasons – factors
not addressed by the CAA, which focuses on religious persecution. Plus, the separatist war responsible for
this ended long ago. However, there have been agreements in the past between the governments of United
states of Simack and republic of Mosis for repatriations of Tamils to United states of Simack. Republic of
Mosis had also conferred citizenship to many of them.45
6. WHETHER CAA IS CONTRARY TO REFUGEE CONVENTION 1951?
All problems can’t be addressed at the same time and it is not Mosis’ responsibility to solve all the problems
of neighboring countries. Nevertheless, Mosis has given shelter to thousands of refugees and asylum
45
Agreement between the Govt. of India and the Govt. of Ceylon on ‘the status and future of persons of Indian origin in Ceylon’

22
seekers, despite not signing the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. Currently, there are 31,000 refugees and
asylum seekers from such countries as Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Republic of Ikra, Republic of Mavrick, the
Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea and others. Those refugees not covered under the CAA will continue
to be protected by Mosis’ ad hoc refugee policy.
The fact is citizenship has been granted at various times on a standalone basis to refugees such as Ugandan
Hindus and Sikhs of Mosian origin, Hindus of Osholand, and Hindus and Sikhs of Republic of Ikra. In 2014,
about 14,864 Oshonian nationals were given Mosian citizenship after incorporation of more than 50
enclaves following an agreement between Osholand and Mosis.
Mosis is among the few countries in the world that has neither a national refugee protection framework nor
an immigration policy. It is also not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, or its 1967 Protocol.
Mosis has also not ratified the 1954 UN Convention on Statelessness or the 1961 UN Convention on
Reduction of Statelessness. It is under no obligation, therefore, to provide rights set out in the conventions to
refugees. It takes decisions on granting long-term visas to refugees essentially on an ad hoc basis. It does
have some laws that govern refugees, including the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939; Foreigners Act,
1946; and the Passport Act, 1967.
In Mosis, while refugees from neighbouring countries (barring Republic Of Mavrick) can seek protection
directly from the government and are issued documentation by the Foreigner Regional Registration Officers
(FRROs), non-neighbouring countries and Republic Of Mavrick come under the UNHCR mandate that
assesses each individual asylum claim and issues an ID card to those recognised as refugees after seeking
biometric data for registration, followed by a comprehensive interview by a UNHCR officer. The whole
process takes anywhere between six months and a year. The government currently allows refugees,
including Rohingya, with UNHCR IDs to apply for a "long-term visa", which the government issues on a
case by case basis.
Importantly, the CAA doesn’t alter the present naturalization policy regarding citizenship. Over the last six
years, many Ikrans, Bismarkians and Oshonians, including hundreds of Muslims, who applied for
citizenship have been granted citizenship through this process. One prominent example is the Bismarkian
singer Adnan Sami, who got it in 2015.
The court in In Louis De Raedt v. Union of India has held that:

"The power of the Government of India to expel foreigners is absolute and unlimited and there is no
provision in the Constitution fettering its discretion and the executive government has unrestricted right to
expel a foreigner. So far as right to be heard is concerned, there cannot be any hard and fast rule about the
manner in which a person concerned has to be given an opportunity to place his case."46
46
Louis De Raedt v. Union of India, 1991 AIR 1886, 1991 SCR (3) 149

23
The court after quoting the above in Sarabananda Sonwal v Union of India, has held that the power to grant
citizenship is consistent with territorial sovereignty. It means that it is a sovereign and totally executive
function. The Court has quoted the famous authority on International Law -
"Most states claim in legal theory to exclude all aliens at will, affirming that such unqualified right is an
essential attribute of sovereign government. The courts of Great Britain and the United States have laid it
down that the right to exclude aliens at will is an incident of territorial sovereignty. Unless bound by an
international treaty to the contrary, states are not subject to a duty under international law to admit aliens
or any duty there under not to expel them. Nor does international law impose any duty as to the period of
stay of an admitted alien." 47
It is humbly submitted that this is conferred by Article 21 which is in the following terms: "No person shall
be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law". Entries 9, 10,
17, 18 and 19 in the Union List confer wide powers on the Centre to make laws about among other things,
admission into and expulsion from Mosis, about extradition and aliens and about preventive detention
connected with foreign affairs. Therefore, the right to make laws about the extradition of aliens and about
their expulsion from the land is expressly conferred; also, it is to be observed that extradition and expulsion
are contained in separate, entries indicating that though they may overlap in certain aspects, they are
different and distinct subjects.
47
Sarabananda Sonwal v Union of India, A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 2920

24
-PRAYER-
Wherefore in the light of the arguments advanced and authorities citied, the Respondents humbly
submit that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1. Section 2(1)(b) and 6B of CAA is constitutional and not ultra vires to Fundamental Rights.
2. The Act is not in violation of the secular principles of the constitution.
3. The Act does not discriminate illegal immigrants on any basis.
4. The citizenship act has sufficient safeguards to protect the interest of the native people of Assam.
5. CAA is not in contradiction to Refugee Convention Act, 1951.
AND
That the court may issue any other order as the court deems fit in the interest of justice, equity and good
conscience.
For this act of kindness, the Respondents shall be duty bound forever.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.
COUNSIL OF RESPONDENTS

25

26

Memorial Intra Final

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

Memorial Intra Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

13Th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

TEAM CODE- 1320R76

13th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF REPUBLIC OF MOSIS

W.P. (C) No.______ 23 of 2019

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF REPUBLIC OF MOSIS

UNION OF MOSIS & PROVINCE OF

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

1.1 SEC2(1)(B) AND 6B IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14

1.2 SEC2(1)(B) AND 6B IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21

1.3 THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

2. WHETHER SEC 2 (1)(B) AND 6B OF AMENDMENT ACT DOES VIOLATES

2.1 CAA AND SECULARISM

3. WHETHER THERE IS VIOLATION OF MUSLIM ILLEGAL MIGRANTS’ RIGHT TO

3.1 PROVIDES EQUAL AND NON- DISCRIMINATORY PROTECTION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

3.2 THE SAID IMMIGRANTS ENJOY PROTECTION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

4. WHETHER CAA IS CONTRARY TO AMREK PACT?..............................................................21

5. WHY ARE NON-MUSLIM ILLEGAL MIGRANTS FROM UNITED STATES OF SIMACK

6. WHETHER CAA IS CONTRARY TO REFUGEE CONVENTION 1951?.................................23

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

AIR All India Report

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

SCC Supreme Court Case

SCJ Supreme Court Journal

UOI Union of India

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

❖ Article 5, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

❖ K. K. Nigam, Due Process of Law: A Comparative Study Of Procedural Guarantees Against

1. Anwar v. State of J & K, 1971 AIR 337………………………………………………………….17

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

1. Al-Kateb v Godwin [2004] HCA 37 (AUSTRALIA)………………………………………18

❖ M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: WITH CONSTITUTIONAL DOCUMENTS (6TH

INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS REFERRED

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

WHETHER REPUBLIC OF MOSIS CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT IS ULTRA VIRES TO

WHETHER THERE IS VIOLATION OF MUSLIM ‘ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHT TO

WHETHER CAA IS CONTRARY TO AMREK PACT?

WHETHER CAA IS CONTRARY TO REFUGEE CONVENTION 1951?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

Whether CAA is contrary to refugee convention 1951?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

1. WHETHER SEC 2(1)(B) AND 6B OF AMENDMENT ACT IS ULTRA VIRES TO ART 14

1.1 SEC2(1)(B) AND 6B IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14

Article 14: Equality before law

1.1.1 THE AMENDMENT ACT PASSES THE TWIN TEST OF REASONABLENESS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

1.2 SEC 2(1)(B) AND 6B ARE NOT IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21

Article 21 of the Constitution is about protection of life and personal liberty:

“All citizens shall have the right

- to freedom of speech and expression;

- to assemble peaceably and without arms;

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

- to form associations or unions;

- to move freely throughout the territory of India;