HLC-201

2ND INTER COLLEGE MOOT COURT

COMPETETION 2024

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF HINDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

W.P.(C) NO. XXXX/2024

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HINDIA

IN THE MATTER OF

ULEMA ISLAMIA E HIND…………………………………PETITIONER

DEFENDERS OF DEMOCRACY………………………..PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF HINDIA……………………………………..RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 3-5

2. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 7-9

5. ISSUES RAISED 10

6. SUMMERY OF ARGUMENTS 11-12

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 13-21

8. PRAYER 22

2
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

❖ TABLE OF CASES
1. Devadoss (dead) by L. RS v. Veera Makali Amman Koil Athalur, AIR 1998 SC 750.
2. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75
3. Ram Krishna Dalmia v. JusQce S R Tendolkar, 1959 SCR 279
4. Bal PaQl v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 690
5. Francis v. Cheif of Police, (1973) 2 All ER 251
6. State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose, AIR1954 SC 92
7. Dr. D.C. Saxena v. Hon'ble Chief JusQce of India, (1996) 5 SCC 216
8. Gulam Abbas v. State of U^ar Pradesh, AIR1981 SC 2198
9. MoQ Das v. State of Bihar AIR 1954 SC 657
10. Chandrika Prasad v. State of Bihar AIR 1972 SC 109
11. UOI v. Naveen Jindal, AIR 2004 SC 1559
12. Budhan Choudhry and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191
13. Ram Krishna Dalmia v. JusQce S.R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538
14. JusQce K.S. Pu^aswamy and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2019) 1 SCC 1
15. E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3
16. State of U^ar Pradesh v. Kaushailiya and Ors., AIR 1964 SC 416
17. Binoy Viswam vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., AIR 2017 SC 2967
18. Kumari Chitra Ghosh v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 228
19. R. C. Poudyal v. Union of India, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 324 at page 386
20. State of M.P. v. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd., (1964) 6 SCR 846, 850
21. Glanrock Estate (P) Ltd. v. State of T.N., (2010) 10 SCC 96
22. Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 404
23. Welfare AssociaQon v. Ranjit P. Gohil, (2003) 9 SCC 358
24. Dharam Du^ v. Union of India, (2004) 1 SCC 712
25. Chandrima Das Case, (2000) 2 SCC 465
26. Indo-China Steam NavigaQon cases, (1964) 6 SCR 594
27. Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao v. State of AP, AIR 1961 SC 564
28. Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha & Ors v. Union of India & Ors,, (2014) SC 792
29. Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, (2000) 2 SCC 465 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF
OF THE RESPONDENT Page 5 of 34
30. Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency, 1955 SCR (1)1284
31. Mr. Louis De Raedt & Ors v. Union of India, 1991 SCR (3) 149
32. Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi v. Union of India, 1999 CriLJ 919
33. Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India, [1962] 3 S.C.R. 842
34. Babulal Parate v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 51
35. Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghgyr, (1970) 3 SCC 746
36. Chintaman Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [1950] S.C.R. 759
37. State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi, [1952] S.C.R. 654
38. Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte & Ors., 1996 (1) SCC
130

3
39. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, (1950) SCR 594
40. Odyssey CommunicaQons Pvt. Ltd. v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana, (1988) 3 SCC 410
41. State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur MoQ Kureshi Kassab Jamat, (2005) 8 SCC 534
42. Ramjilal Modi v. State of U^ar Pradesh, [1957] S.C. R.860
43. Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh v. Ram Manohar Lohia, [1960] 2 S.C.R.
821
44. State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196
45. Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7
SCC 353 46. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27
47. Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India, 1970 (1) SCC 248

❖ BOOKS
1. B.N. RAU, INDIAN CONSTITUTION IN THE MAKING 1960
2. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 9 th ediQon, 2009
3. D.D. BASU COMMENTARY ON CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 8 th ediQon, 2008
4. H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA 4 th EdiQon, 2008
5. KD GAUR, INDIAN PENAL CODE 6 th EdiQon, 2016
6. M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 6 th EdiQon, 2010

❖ WEBSITES
1. www.judis.nic.in
2. www.liiofindia.org
3. www.scconline.com
4. www.manupatra.com
5. www.supremecourtcaselaw.com

4
LIST OF ABBRIVIATIONS

5
 • STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The present writ petition, instituted under the auspices of Article 32 of the Constitution of
Hindia, 1950, is advanced by the Petitioners, disquieted by the promulgation of the Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 2024 (hereinafter "CAA"), a measure perceived to sanction the ingress of
undocumented migrants solely on the basis of their religious persuasion. The Petitioners posit
that such legislative enactment egregiously transgresses the hallowed sanctums of Article 14
and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Consequently, they implore this august Court to
intercede by means of a writ of certiorari or any other pertinent writ, to pronounce nullity upon
the CAA and CA rules of 2024, alongside the proviso to Section 2(1)(b) of the CAA, for their
repugnance to constitutional tenets.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction vested in the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of Hindia under Article 32, a constitutional provision meticulously crafted to
safeguard the corpus of rights enshrined within Part III of the Constitution. Article 32,
delineating the remedial ambit of this Court, articulates:

(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 clauses (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 invocation of this constitutional jurisdiction by the Petitioners is predicated on their

assertion of the imperative to safeguard and vindicate their constitutional entitlements, a
solemn endeavour to ensure the majesty of the law prevails and justice is meted out in
consonance with the cherished principles enshrined within our constitutional edifice.

6
• STATEMENTS OF FACTS

1. That. Hindia, renowned for its diverse cultural tapestry and historical tradition of unity
in diversity, hosts a multitude of religious, linguistic, and ethnic communities,
coalescing in harmonious coexistence. The societal fabric of Hindia has evolved over
centuries, embodying a mosaic of faiths including Hinduism, Islam, Christianity,
Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, and indigenous beliefs.
2. The petitioners, Ulema Islamia E Hind, an esteemed Islamic educational institution
dedicated to upholding the rights and welfare of religious minorities, and Defenders Of
Democracy brings forth this memorial before the Honorable Court in response to the
Constitutional Amendment Act (CAA) & CA Rules, 2024. This legislation, purportedly
aimed at providing citizenship to persecuted minorities from neighboring countries,
raises grave concerns regarding its constitutionality and its potential ramifications on
religious freedom and communal harmony within Hindia.
3. That, the Constitution of Hindia, serving as the bedrock of its democratic principles,
enshrines secularism and egalitarianism. It ensures the protection of the rights and
liberties of all citizens, irrespective of their religious affiliations. Central to this
constitutional ethos is the principle of secularism, which mandates state neutrality in
matters of religion, fostering an environment conducive to the free practice and
professing of faith.
4. That, In response to documented instances of religious persecution in neighbouring
nations, the Hindian Parliament enacted the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). This
legislative measure aimed to provide expedited citizenship pathways to individuals
belonging to specific religious communities—namely Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains,
Parsis, and Christians—who fled religious persecution in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and
Pakistan prior to December 31, 2014.
5. That, the enactment of the CAA precipitated widespread contention, primarily due to
its selective inclusion of religious groups, omitting Muslims and others. This
exclusionary aspect prompted vehement protests and drew international scrutiny,
challenging the foundational principles of secularism enshrined within the Hindian
Constitution. Despite significant dissent, the CAA secured legislative passage, igniting
nationwide demonstrations and necessitating governmental intervention.

7
6. That, defending the CAA as a humanitarian endeavour aligned with constitutional
imperatives, the government proposed integration initiatives and expedited legal
mechanisms to alleviate apprehensions surrounding its implementation. Emphasizing
the Act's compliance with constitutional mandates, the government sought to assuage
concerns regarding its impact on national unity.
7. That, the assertion of federalism by a coalition of state governments, denoting their
intention to challenge the CAA's enforcement within their respective jurisdictions,
underscored concerns pertaining to constitutional integrity and social cohesion. This
assertion precipitated a constitutional discourse on the delineation of authority between
the central and state governments in matters of citizenship.
8. That, the legal challenge to the CAA transpired through various Public Interest
Litigations (PILs), each contesting the Act's constitutionality and associated
regulations. Notable among these petitions were filings by the "Ulema Islamia E Hind"
and "Defenders of Democracy," advocating for religious minorities' rights and
highlighting potential breaches of Hindia's international obligations, respectively.
9. That as of the present, legal challenges pertaining to the constitutionality of the CAA
remain unresolved, with matters pending adjudication before the esteemed Supreme
Court of Hindia. The pending litigation underscores the imperative of upholding
constitutional principles and safeguarding fundamental rights within the democratic
framework of Hindia.
10. That the present public interest writ petition raises a seminal important questions related
to the promulgation of CA, Act 2019, wherein the benefits of naturalization to the
illegal migrants is being extended to certain a class of illegal migrant belonging to the
religion of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians coming from
Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Such classification on the basis of religious
identity of the individual clearly violates Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Moreover, the classification based on the religious identity of the individual offends the
fundamental principle of ‘Secularism’, which is enshrined as basic structure of the
Constitution. Therefore, the present writ petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution
has been necessitated in accordance to the promulgation of Citizenship (Amendment)
Act, 2019 on , passed by the Parliament of Hindia.
11. That it is pertinent to note that vide the Amendment Act the benefit of reduced period
of naturalization to 5 years shall be granted to everyone, including illegal immigrants
if they are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan,

8
 Bangladesh and Pakistan.The amendment make two classification (1) classification
based on religion by excluding Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians
from the ambit of illegal migrants (2) classification based on the country, wherein the
benefit of restricting the benefit of naturalization is extended to religious minorities
only from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh. However, the CA, Act 2019 excluded
such benefit to a similarly situated class of persons Muslim illegal migrants/ Hindu
illegal migrants from Sri Lanka etc.
12. The petitioner contends that the CAA violates the fundamental principles of equality,
secularism, and non-discrimination enshrined in the Hindian Constitution. By selectively
granting citizenship based on religious identity, the Act undermines the secular fabric of the
nation and contravenes Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 15 (Prohibition of
Discrimination) of the Constitution.
13. Furthermore, the petitioner argues that the CAA's exclusionary nature violates Hindia's
international obligations under various human rights conventions, particularly with regard to
the treatment of stateless individuals and the principle of non-refoulement.
14. The petitioner submits that the CAA perpetuates religious discrimination by privileging certain
religious groups while marginalizing others. Such discriminatory practices not only violate the
core principles of secularism but also sow seeds of communal discord and disharmony among
Hindia's diverse populace.
15. Moreover, the petitioner contends that the Act fails to provide adequate safeguards for the rights
of religious minorities, particularly in the context of their integration and protection against
potential backlash from extremist elements within Hindia.
16. In light of the foregoing arguments and legal principles, the petitioner respectfully prays for the
Honorable Court's intervention to:
• Declare the Constitutional Amendment Act (CAA) & CA Rules, 2024, as unconstitutional and
void ab initio.
• Safeguard the rights and liberties of all individuals, regardless of their religious affiliations, in
accordance with the principles of equality, secularism, and non-discrimination.
• Uphold Hindia's international obligations under relevant human rights conventions, ensuring
the fair and just treatment of all individuals seeking refuge and protection within its borders.
17. The petitioner humbly seeks the Court's wisdom and impartial judgment in addressing this
critical matter of constitutional significance, thereby reaffirming Hindia's commitment to
pluralism, inclusivity, and the rule of law.

THEREFORE THIS PETITION IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME

COURT OF HINDIA.

9
• ISSUES RAISED

1. Is the PIL maintainable before the Supreme Court of India?

2. Is the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 & Citizenship

(Amendment) Rules, 2024 unconstitutional?

3. Is the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 violating the Basic

Structure Doctrine?

4. Is the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 violating the

International Law?

10
 • SUMMERY OF ARGUMENTS

1. PIL maintainable before the Supreme Court of India.

The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) mechanism in Hindia, anchored in Article 32 of the
Constitution, allows individuals or groups to initiate legal proceedings for matters of societal
concern. PILs must meet criteria including locus standi, addressing public interest, and
challenging constitutional validity. The current PIL challenges the Citizenship Amendment Act
(CAA), 2019, raising concerns about religious classification of migrants, fundamental rights,
and secular principles. The petitioners represent broader public interest and uphold
constitutional values. The PIL satisfies the criteria for maintainability, addressing significant
public issues and constitutional scrutiny, thus warranting judicial adjudication.

2. The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 & Citizenship

(Amendment) Rules, 2024 unconstitutional.

The counsel contends that the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019, along with its
associated rules, violates fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution on multiple
fronts. The key contentions include the Act's infringement of Article 14 by discriminating
against Muslims based on religious grounds, its arbitrary country-based classification which
lacks a rational nexus and contradicts the Constitution's basic structure, and its encroachment
upon the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 by discriminating against
specific religious groups. Moreover, the CAA is argued to conflict with constitutional
secularism and principles inherent in Indian nationality laws. Given the Act's impact on
fundamental rights, the counsel asserts the necessity of judicial intervention under Article 32,
contending that the CAA transgresses fundamental rights, lacks reasonable classification,
demonstrates arbitrariness, and runs counter to constitutional principles.

3. The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 violating the Basic

Structure Doctrine.

The argument posited is that the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019 contravenes the
foundational principle of secularism enshrined in the Indian Constitution, thereby challenging
its basic structure. As elucidated by the Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India

11
(1994) 3 SCC 1, secularism is integral to India's constitutional framework, mandating equal
treatment of all religions without preference or bias. However, the CAA's exclusion of Muslims
from citizenship acquisition based on religious identity is deemed antithetical to this principle,
implicitly favoring certain religions while marginalizing others. This discriminatory treatment
not only undermines the secular ethos of equal treatment before the law but also perpetuates
the marginalization of religious minorities, thereby infringing upon the core tenets of
secularism within the constitutional fabric.

4. The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 violating the

International Law.

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019 is argued to breach India's

international commitments under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). By discriminating against
Muslims and privileging specific religious groups in granting citizenship, the CAA contravenes
Article 26 of the ICCPR, which prohibits religious-based discrimination, and fails to uphold
India's duty to respect and protect human rights as enshrined in international law. This
violation, underscored by judicial precedent emphasizing adherence to international norms,
highlights the CAA's inconsistency with India's constitutional and international obligations
regarding equality and non-discrimination.

12
 • ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. THE PIL MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

OF INDIA.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) constitutes a legal mechanism by which an individual or a

group, acting in the public interest, may initiate legal proceedings before the judiciary to
address matters of societal concern. It serves as a conduit for advocating broader public welfare
and constitutional values. PIL finds its constitutional mooring in Article 32 of the Constitution
of Hindia, which confers upon individuals the prerogative to petition the Supreme Court for
the enforcement of fundamental rights. Article 32 embodies a safeguard for ensuring access to
justice and the protection of constitutional entitlements, thereby providing the underpinning for
PIL. The maintainability of PILs is contingent upon the satisfaction of specific criteria:

Locus Standi: Petitioners must demonstrate a sufficient interest or concern in the subject
matter under contention. In PILs, this often manifests as representation of a marginalized
segment of society or advocacy for issues of broader societal import.

Public Interest: PILs must address matters of public interest or societal welfare, transcending
individual grievances to impact a substantial cross-section of the populace.

Constitutional Validity: PILs frequently challenge the constitutionality of legislative

enactments or governmental actions, invoking judicial oversight to ensure adherence to
constitutional tenets and safeguard fundamental rights.

The instant PIL raises substantial constitutional apprehensions vis-à-vis the Citizenship
Amendment Act (CAA), 2019. Central to its contentions are concerns regarding the
classification of illegal migrants based on religious criteria, potential infringements upon
fundamental rights, and the preservation of secular principles enshrined within the
constitutional framework.

Locus Standi: The petitioners, acting in the capacity of concerned citizens or organizations,
effectively represent the broader public interest in upholding constitutional values and
safeguarding the rights of affected individuals or communities. Their standing bolsters the
claim for maintainability.

13
Public Interest: The issues canvassed in the PIL, notably the constitutionality of the CAA and
its ramifications for religious minorities and secularism, unequivocally satisfy the criterion of
public interest. The petition traverses beyond individual grievances, addressing matters of
societal significance.

Constitutional Validity: By impugning the constitutionality of a legislative enactment and its

compatibility with constitutionally enshrined rights, the PIL squarely falls within the ambit of
permissible legal challenges under PIL jurisprudence.

Upon a thorough evaluation, it is discernible that the present PIL satisfies the requisite criteria
for maintainability. Its articulation of issues of significant public import, entailing
constitutional scrutiny and redress, aligns squarely with the underlying objectives and
parameters of PIL. Consequently, the PIL is poised for adjudication, affording the judiciary the
opportunity to engage in a comprehensive examination of the legal and constitutional
imperatives at stake

II. THE CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT, 2019 & CITIZENSHIP

(AMENDMENT) RULES, 2024 UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The counsel for the petitioners respectfully contends that the Citizenship Amendment Act is
unconstitutional as it egregiously violates fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners
under Part III of the Constitution.

Religion-based classification constitutes an impermissible classification, thereby

contravening Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

1. 1. Section 2 of the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019 modified the definition of

"illegal migrant," specifically exempting Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and
Christians from this classification.
2. 2. Furthermore, Section 2 of the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019 stipulates that the
eligibility for naturalization under Section 6B of the Citizenship Act is restricted to
religious minorities, namely Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians,
originating from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.

14
 3. 3. The religion-based categorization established by the Citizenship Amendment Act of
2019 constitutes an impermissible classification and thus violates Article 14 of the
Indian Constitution.
4. That the CA, Act 2019 does not have reasonable classification based on intelligible
differentia. The classification based on religion ipso facto violates Article 14 of the
Indian Constitution, wherein the legislation effectuate discrimination on the basis of the
intrinsic and core identity of the individual i.e religious identity of the individual.

5. That, CA, Act 2019 explicitly discriminates against the Muslims. The Act extends the
benefit to individuals belonging Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians,
but excludes the same benefit to the individuals belonging to the Islam religion. Since,
CA, Act 2019 discriminates on the basis of core and intrinsic trait of the individual i.e
religion of the individual, it cannot form a reasonable classification based on intelligible
differentia.
6. That, this Hon’ble Court in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India , (2018)10 SCC 1, has
held that “where a legislation discriminates on the basis of an intrinsic and core trait
of an individual, it cannot form a reasonable classification based on an intelligible
differentia”. Similarly, the individuals belonging to the class of Muslims must not be
excluded from the benefit under Section 6B of the Citizenship Act, on the basis of their
religious identity. Therefore, the religious based classification is impermissible
principle to be used for the purpose of classification.

7. That, if the classification is founded on the intrinsic and core element of the individual
ground such as race, sex, religion, place of birth and caste. Such classifications are
prime facie impermissible classification under Article 14 of the Constitution. The CA,
Act 2019 has founded its intelligible differentia on the basis of religion, which is core
identity of the individual.
8. That, intelligible differentia based on religion clearly constitute discrimination based
on impermissible or invalid classification. Hence, of CA, Act 2019 is violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019 fails to meet the twin test outlined in Article 14
of the Indian Constitution.

15
1. That, the Article 14 of the Indian Constitution envisages that the ‘all should be treated
equally alike’, wherein it implies that the law should give equal treatment for all equals.
However, the CA, Act 2019 runs contrary to the concept of equality enshrined in the
Constitution.
2. The religious classification of CA, Act 2019 violates the twin test of classification under
Article 14, wherein it requires that (i) there should be a reasonable classification based
on intelligible differentia; and,(ii) this classification should have a rational nexus with
the objective sought to be achieved
3. That the classification in the CA, Act 2019 is not founded on the basis of intelligible
differentia. The yardstick for the purpose of differentiating in the CA, Act 2019 is that
the ‘religious persecuted minorities’ belonging to the country of Afghanistan, Pakistan
and Bangladesh. It includes Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians, but
at the same time exclude other minorities facing discrimination or persecution on the
basis of their religious/sect belief, such as Ahmadiyya sect in Pakistan and Shia Sect
and Hazara Sect in Afghanistan.

4. The denial of similar benefit accrued in CA, Act 2019 to the similarly situated persons
belonging to the minority sect of Ahmaddiya and Shia sect, who faces similar
persecution alike religious minorities (Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and
Christians) clearly constitutes an unreasonable classification and violates Article 14 of
the Indian Constitution
5. That, the classification does not satisfy the nexus prong test of Article 14. If the object
of the CA, Act 2019 is to protect the ‘minorities who faced religious persecution in
Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh’, then, the Ahmaddiyya and Shia sect from these
countries are entitled to equal treatment for the benefit of CA, Act 2019. It is well
documented that the sect based discrimination within the religion exists in Pakistan and
Afghanistan. Therefore, the extension of benefit of CA Act, 2019 to the religious
minority such as Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians, but denying the
same to Ahmaddiyyas, Hazaras and Shia sect within these countries is unable to satisfy
that the nexus prong of objective sought to be achieved, which is protection of
minorities facing religious persecution in the Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Therefore, the CA, Act 2019 is a violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

16
o The Religious/Country based classification of CA, Act 2019 is manifestly arbitrary
and unreasonable

1. The Section 2 of CA, Act 2019 provides two classifications for the purpose of excluding
from the definition of ‘illegal migrant’ and granting the benefit of naturalization under
Section 6B of the citizenship Act.
2. Apart from the religious based exclusion of Muslims from the benefit of acquiring
citizenship through naturalization. The benefit is limited to religious minorities
belonging to Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh.
3. That, the object of the CA, 2019 is to ‘protect those have faced religious faced
persecution in Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan’. However, the CA, Act 2019
does not lay down the principle on which these aforesaid three countries were chosen
to grant protection to the religious minorities. It also does not explain how the claims
of persecution are being believed en masse.

4. That, the arbitrary classification of the aforesaid countries without any rationale, or
standard principles constitutes manifest arbitrariness and violates Article 14 of the
Indian Constitution.
5. That, this Hon’ble Court in Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P., (2002) 2 SCC 188,
wherein Para 25 states that “the expression “arbitrarily” means: in an unreasonable
manner, as fixed or done capriciously or at pleasure, without adequate determining
principle, not founded in the nature of things, non-rational, not done or acting
according to reason or judgment, depending on the will alone”.
6. This Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shayaro Bano v Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1had also
noted that “And a constitutional infirmity is found in Article 14 itself whenever
legislation is “manifestly arbitrary” i.e. when it is not fair, not reasonable,
discriminatory, not transparent, capricious, biased, with favouritism or nepotism and
not in pursuit of promotion of healthy competition and equitable treatment. Positively
speaking, it should conform to norms which are rational, informed with reason and
guided by public interest, etc.”
7. That, the country based classification of the CA Act 2019 is manifestly arbitrary. The
impugned Section 2(1)(b) of CAB, Act 2019 only permits the illegal migrant belonging
to religious minorities, who faced persecution from the Afghanistan, Pakistan and
Bangladesh would be entitled to benefit of naturalization by virtue of CA, Act 2019.

17
8. However, the CA, Act 2019 does not prescribed any standard principle or norm behind
choosing aforesaid three neighboring countries, whereby it does not extend the benefit
to religious minorities belonging to other neighboring counties such as Sri Lanka,
Myanmar, Nepal and Bhutan.
9. That, the classification of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh is not founded on
rationale principle to justify a separate special treatment for the religious minorities
facing persecution on the basis of religion.
10. That, if the guiding principle of the Indian Government to single out the Pakistan,
Bangladesh and Afghanistan, is because there exist religious persecution. There exist
religious persecution in higher degree of harm in Sri Lanka and Myanmar. Sri Lankan
Eelam Tamil had faced religious and ethnic persecution from the Sri Lankan
Government and Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar had also faced the most extreme
forms of inhumane persecution at the hands of Myanmar Army. Therefore, there is no
guiding principle to single out three countries (Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh)
and extend the benefit of citizenship through naturalization to the religion minorities of
the aforementioned three countries.
11. That, if the Indian Government argues that the guiding principle of country
classification is that the aforementioned three countries have a state religion i.e Islam.
As a result, there would be higher chances of religious persecution. But, the neighboring
state of Sri Lanka also has a State religion, which prescribes Buddhism as the State
religion. Therefore, there are no guiding principles on which these aforementioned three
countries were pick and choose by the Indian Government in the CA, Act 2019, for the
purpose of granting benefit of Citizenship through naturalization.
12. That, the country classification of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh without any
guiding principle, standard norm, or rationality clearly constitutes the classification as
manifest arbitrariness and unreasonable.

o CA Act, 2019 is based upon a classification that has no rational relation with the
apparent object sought to be achieved by the Act

1. That the Act selects religion as the basis of deciding which a refugee to be treated as
illegal irrespective of the fact whether she has been discriminated against religiously or
not. This basis bears no rational relation with the apparent object sought to achieved by
the Act, giving relief to refugees who face religious discrimination.

18
 2. That the clubbing of Afghanistan, which was not a part of British Indian territory, with
Pakistan and Bangladesh, who were, ipso facto demonstrates that the countries have
been chosen carefully to discriminate between refugees on religious basis having no
rational relation with the apparent object of the Act. C. The choice of the three countries
while not including China, Sri Lanka and Burma demonstrates that the intention of the
classification was exclusion of refugees from citizenship in religious basis.
3. The Amendment Act is destructive of the basic structure of one of the pillars of the
Constitution of India, to wit, secularism and having the effect of violation of the article
51 of the Constitution of India of promotion of international peace and order by
alienating all Islamic countries and fostering respect for international law on refugees,
that does not permit discrimination on the basis of religion (Refugee Convention
1951).The principle enunciated in the Charter of the United Nations is that human
beings shall enjoy fundamental rights and freedoms without discrimination.The
legislation is manifestly arbitrary seeking to draw an artificial distinction between
refugees who flee on account of alleged religious persecution and all other refugees. It
further draws a distinction between the Muslim refugees who have been subjected to
alleged religious persecutionand the Hindu, Sikh, Christian and Parsi refugees. It
arbitrarily presumes that all Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Christian and Parsi refugees have fled
their home countries solely on account of religious persecution. Additionally, the
legislature has deliberately selected Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistanand
excluded China and Myanmar solely to discriminate on the basis religion in deliberate
defiance of article 14 of the Constitution of India.

In the landmark case of National Human Rights Commission v State of Arunachal Pradesh
(1996), the issue pertained to the status of Chakma refugees, undocumented immigrants from
Bangladesh. The court, recognizing the fundamental rights of life and liberty under Article 21
of the Constitution, extended these protections to the Chakma community, despite their non-
Indian citizenship status. In light of this precedent, it is argued that the Citizenship Amendment
Act (CAA) contravenes both Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution.

o The Act's infringement upon Article 15 of the Constitution:

The CAA selectively grants citizenship to certain religious minorities while excluding
others, particularly non-Islamic migrants. The foundational principle of Indian citizenship,
devoid of discrimination based on religion, race, or caste, is central to the Constitution's

19
 ethos. Therefore, the CAA's departure from this inclusive vision undermines one of the
nation's fundamental principles—a refuge for individuals of all faiths.

o Conflict with the Constitutional principle of Secularism:

As established in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala,

secularism constitutes a core tenet of the Constitution. The State's secular stance prohibits
the intertwining of religion with its secular functions. Any incursion of religious
considerations into governmental affairs is strictly proscribed. The Constitution mandates
the separation of religion and state, ensuring the secular character of governmental actions.

o Conflict with Nationality Laws:

The framers of the Constitution deliberately refrained from defining citizenship on religious
grounds, opting instead for birthright citizenship. Subsequent amendments in 1986 and 2003
further solidified this principle. The CAA's basis for conferring citizenship on religious identity
diverges from the constitutional intent, contradicting the foundational principles upon which
Indian nationality laws are grounded.

Secondly, if refugees from these religions have claim because they were once a part of pre-
partition India then so do the Muslim of Pakistan. They too were a part of pre-partition India.
That the Article 5 to 11 of the Constitution governs the conferred based on the principles of jus
soli, or citizenship established by birth. This means that any person born in India on or post 26
january 1950 but before the commencement of the 1986 Citizenship Act on 1, July 1987 is a
citizen of India by birth. The Citizenship(Amendment) Bill, 1986, passed by both houses of
Parliament, stipulates it is no longer adequate to be born in India to be granted Indian
Citizenship. At the time of birth either one of the parent has to be an Indian citizen for the
person to become a citizen of India. The CAA hence deals with India Nationality Law.

It is submitted that art. 14 and 21 are the heart of the chapter of fundamental rights . In Maneka
Gandhi v. UOI1 , J. Bhagwati, observed “…….these fundamental rights represents the basic
value cherished by the people of this country since the vedic times and they are calculated to
protect the dignity of the individuals and create condition in which every human can develop
his personality to be fullest extent……”

1
AIR 1978 SC 861

20
It is submitted that in a case where breach of fundamental rights is established, the petitioner
is entitled to ex debito justitiae for issue of appropriate writ or direction and the court would
have no power to refuse relief2 . Further art.32 has much wider scope and includes within its
matrix power to issue any directions, order or writ which may be appropriate for enforcement
of fundamental rights in question.3
Therefore, any law whether made by parliament or a state legislature, will be void if it takes
away or abridges one or more of the fundamental rights that Constitution guarantees.4

III. IS THE CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT, 2019 VIOLATING

THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE?

The CA Act 2019 violates the core principle of secularism and thereby violates basic structure
of the Constitution

1. That, the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019 also breaches the principle of secularism,
a fundamental tenet considered integral to the constitutional framework.
2. That, this Hon’ble Court of India in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1,
has unequivocally held that ‘Secularism is part of the basic structure of the
constitution’. As a result, the concept of secularism pervades and embedded in the
constitution philosophy.
3. A fundamental tenet of secularism is its explicit and implicit proscription of
establishing a theocratic state and precluding the State from aligning itself with or
favoring any particular religion or religious denomination. The State is mandated to
afford equal treatment to all religions and religious denominations, as emphasized by
the Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1.
4. That, the CA, Act 2019 incorporates a process of acquiring citizenship on the basis of
religious identity. The person belonging to the Islam religion would not able to acquire
citizenship through naturalization. The CA, Act 2019 implicitly enabled a citizenship
law based on religion. It had explicitly associated or favored a group of religion such
as Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians. But, the CA, Act 2019

2
N. Mathan Sahib v. Chief Commissioner, Pondicherry , AIR 1962 SC 797
3
4 SC 814
4
Behram Kurshed Pesikaka v The State of Bombay

21
 excluded the protection to the Muslims. As a result, it denied the equal treatment to all
religion in the eyes of law.
5. The Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019 contravenes the foundational values and
principles of secularism by perpetuating the notion of treating minorities as second-
class citizens. The Act's religion-based classification undermines this principle and
seeks to categorize individuals belonging to the Muslim faith solely as "illegal
migrants." Consequently, the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019 runs counter to the

Hence, the CA, Act 2019 is contrary to principle and spirit of secularism and thereby violates
basic structure of the constitution.

IV. IS THE CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT, 2019 VIOLATING

THE INTERNATIONAL LAW?

Citizenship: A Universal Right in International Human Rights Law

A. That, the Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) provides that
“everyone has the right to a nationality” and that “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his
nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.” Enshrining citizenship and the right
to be free from arbitrary deprivation of citizenship as human rights in and of themselves, article
15 of the UDHR establishes the bedrock legal relationship between individuals and states.

B. While all states are bound to respect the human rights of all individuals without distinction,
an individual's legal bond to a particular state through citizenship remains in practice an
essential prerequisite to the enjoyment and protection of the full range of human rights. The
universal anti- discrimination norm and the principle that statelessness should be avoided have
emerged to constrain state discretion on citizenship under International Law.

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 violates India’s international obligation under
UDHR and ICCPR

1. That, the International human rights law imposes obligation upon the States to respect,
protect and promote human rights of all individuals including right to equality and
prohibition against discrimination on the basis of the religion.

22
 2. The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 directly violates Article 26 of ICCPR. The
new enactment of CA, 2019 is not in conformity with India’s international obligations.
3. The freedom from discrimination is considered as one of the core principles of human
rights and the same has been provided in Universal declaration of human rights
(UDHR), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), International
Covenant on Social, Cultural and Economic Rights (ICESCR).
4. The India has a constitutional duty to honor these internationally recognized rules and
principles. Article 51 of which forms part of the Directive Principles of State Policy,
requires the State to endeavour to “foster respect for international law and treaty
obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another”.

5. That, the Article 26 of ICCPR clearly imposes obligation to prohibit any discrimination
on the ground of religion and mandates effective protection against discrimination on
the basis of religious identity.
6. That, Article 26 of ICCPR is provided herein below: “All persons are equal before the
law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In
this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons
equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race,
colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status.”
7. The Supreme Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241, wherein it was
held that, “Any international convention not inconsistent with the fundamental rights

and in harmony with its spirit must be read into these provisions to enlarge the meaning and
content thereof, to promote the object of the constitutional guarantee. This is implicit from
Article 51(c) and the enabling power of Parliament to enact laws for implementing the
international conventions and norms by virtue of Article 253 read with Entry 14 of the Union
List in Seventh Schedule of the Constitution”.

Similarly, the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10
SCC 1, wherein the Court has held that “India is a responsible member of the international
community and the Court must adopt an interpretation which abides by the international
commitments made by the country particularly where its constitutional and statutory mandates
indicate no deviation. In fact, the enactment of the Human Rights Act by Parliament would

23
indicate a legislative desire to implement the human rights regime founded on constitutional
values and international conventions acceded to by India”.

9. Therefore, it is undisputed that the India has commitment and obligation under the
international human rights to respect and protect the rights enumerated in ICCPR. Thus,
the Article 26 of ICCPR, which prohibits the discrimination on the basis of religious
identity, has to be read along with rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.
10. The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, is patently premised on the discrimination
against the Muslims. The CA, 2019 ensures that the benefit of naturalization to the
illegal migrants from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh to persons belonging to
Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians, except Muslims.
11. That, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 is blatantly discriminatory against the
Muslims in India. Article 26 of the ICCPR and Article 7 of UDHR does not recognize
any difference between citizen and non-citizen, but prohibits any form of discrimination
on the basis of religion.
12. That, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 giving benefit to a number of religious
group and at the same time excluding Muslim from the ambit of benefit of
naturalization is clear violation of Article 26 of ICCPR and Article 7 of UDHR.

Therefore, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 is a violation of India’s obligation under
International law.

24
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is humbly prayed before this Honorable Court:

1. That the PIL be deemed maintainable before the Supreme Court of India, in accordance with
Article 32 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to move the Court for the enforcement
of fundamental rights.

2. That the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 & Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024 be
declared unconstitutional, contravening Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the
right to equality before the law and the equal protection of laws.

3. That the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 be declared to violate the Basic Structure
Doctrine, particularly the principle of secularism enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution,
which mandates the State to maintain equality among all religions.

4. That the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 be declared to violate International Law,
particularly Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, by
discriminating against individuals based on their religious identity.

OR / OTHERWISE

PASS ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY
DEEM FIT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE COUNSELS SHALL FOREVER PRAY.

DATED this ___ day of ____, 2024.

25
 Annexure

26
27
28
29
30
31