IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. OF 2019

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. Indian Union Muslim League

36 Marikayyar Lebbai Street
Chennai, Tamil Nadu

2. P.K. Kunhalikutty
Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXX

3. E.T. Mohammed Basheer

Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX
4. Abdul Wahab
Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
5. K. Navas Kani
Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
 Versus
6. Union of India
Through Cabinet Secretary
Rashtrapati Bhawan,
New Delhi-110004
7. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs
North Block,
New Delhi-110001
8. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Law and Justice
Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi-110001
... Respondents

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India

And His companion Justices of the

Supreme Court of India

The Humble petition of the

 Petitioner above named

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The present writ petition under Article 32 is

preferred by the Petitioners herein since the

Petitioners are aggrieved by the enactment of

CA, Act 2019, which is paving the way for

admitting illegal migrants in the country on

the basis of their religion. The same is also

clearly violative of Article 14 and 21 of the

Indian Constitution and thereby the

Petitioners are seeking the issuance of a writ

of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to

declare the Notifications dated 08.09.2015,

the Notification dated 18.07.2016 and

Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019,

particularly the proviso to Section 2(1)(b) as

void, for being in violation of Article 14 and

21 of the Constitution.

1A. The details of the Petitioner filing the present

Public Interest Litigation are as follows:

a) The First Petitioner is a Political Party in the

name and style of "Indian Union Muslim

League" Registered and recognized by

the Election Commission of India

Represented by its General Secretary P.K.

Kunalikutty Member of Parliament, Lok

Sabha. The first petitioner is a political

party registered and recognized by the

Election Commission of India and has got its

representatives in the Parliament as well as

the State Legislative Assemblies. The

Secretary General of the Petitioner is

authorised to file the present Petition. The

registered address/Headquarters of the

Petitioner is at

of the Petitioner is

Petitioner No.1 has among its objectives to

strive to preserve and promote and honour

the religious and cultural identity of Muslims

and other minorities and backward

communities of India, enriching national life

 and strengthening its secular and democratic

foundations.

b) Petitioner No.2 and 3 are members of Indian

Parliament (Lok Sabha) representing

Malappuram and Ponnani Constituencies in

Kerala respectively and Petitioner No.4 is a

member of the Rajya Sabha.

c) Petitioner No.5 is a member of Lok Sabha

representing Ramanathapuram constituency

in Tamil Nadu.

d) The Petitioners are aggrieved by the passing

of the present Citizenship Amendment Act,

2019 as the same allows for Illegal Migrants

on the basis of their religion is entitled to

acquire citizenship and are constrained, since

the same benefit of the aforesaid act is

excluded to Muslims.

e) 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 India.

1B. The Petitioner has no other equally

efficacious remedy except to approach this

Hon'ble Court by way of present Writ

Petition. All annexures annexed to the Writ

Petition are true copies of their respective

originals.

1C. The Petitioner has not filed any other Petition

either before this Hon'ble Court or any other

 court High Court for seeking same or similar

relief.

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. On 23.11.1946, The Central Legislative

Assembly of British India enacted Foreigner

Act, 1946 in order to confer certain power to

Central Government in respect of dealing

with foreigners in India.

Section 2 (a) of the Foreigner Act, 1946

defines a foreigner as follows:

"foreigner" means a person who is not a

citizen of India.

A copy of relevant provision of Foreigner Act,

1946 dated 23.11.1946 enacted by the

Central Legislative Assembly is produced and

annexed herewith as Annexure P-1(pages

3. In view of the powers granted under Article

11 of the Indian Constitution, the Indian

Parliament enacted the Citizenship Act, 1955

to provide a substantive and procedural

framework with respect to acquisition and

determination of the Indian Citizenship.

 Section 2 (1) (b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955

clearly provides the definition of illegal

migrant and it is defined as follows;

2(1) (b)illegal migrant means’ a foreigner

who has entered into India-

(i) Without a valid passport or travel

documents and such other documents or

authority as may be prescribed by or under

any law in that behalf; or

(ii) With a valid passport or other travel

documents and such other document or

authority as may be prescribed by or under

any law in that behalf but remains therein

beyond the permitted period of time;

A copy of the Citizenship Act, 1955 dated

30.12.1955 passed by the Indian Parliament

is produced and annexed herewith as

Annexure P-2(pages

4. On 10.12.2003, the Indian Government in

the exercise of power conferred under

Section 18 of the Citizenship Amendment

Act, 1955 have promulgated the “Citizenship

(Registration of Citizens and Issue of National

Identity Cards) Rules, 2003”.

The Rule 3 and 4 of the Citizenship Rules,

2003 provides outline for the maintenance

and preparation of National Register of

Citizens throughout the country. It is

pertinent to note that the persons Rule 4(4)

of the Citizenship Rules, prescribes as

follows;

During the verification process, particulars of

such individuals, whose Citizenship is

doubtful, shall be entered by the Local

Registrar with appropriate remark in the

Population Register for further enquiry and in

case of doubtful Citizenship, the individual or

the family shall be informed in a specified

proforma immediately after the verification

process is over.

The persons excluded from the National

Register of Citizens in pursuant to Rule 4 of

the Citizenship Rules, 2003, have to finally

represent the proceedings before the

Foreigner Tribunal in order to establish

 citizenship of the person. A person declared

as Foreigner by the Tribunal shall result in

detention at the detention centre.

A copy of the Citizenship (Registration of

Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards)

Rules, 2003 dated 10.12.2003 promulgated

by the Central Government is produced and

annexed herewith as Annexure P-3(pages

5. On 07.09.2015, The Ministry Home Affairs,

vide Notification dated 08.09.2015 bearing

number GSR 685(E) and GSR 686(E)made an

amendment in the Passport (Entry into India)

Rules, 1950 and Foreigners Order, 1948 and

allowed entry to persons belonging to

minority communities in Bangladesh and

Pakistan, namely, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists,

Jains, Parsis and Christians who were

compelled to seek shelter in India due to

religious persecution or fear of religious

persecution, who entered into India on or

before the 31st December, 2014 without

valid documents.
 A true copy of the Notification dated

08.09.2015 issued by the Ministry of Home

Affairs is produced and annexed herewith as

Annexure P-4(pages

6. Further on 18.07.2016, the Ministry of Home

Affairs vide Notification number GSR 702 (E)

and 703(E)dated 18.07.2016 published in

Gazette No. 495 made an amendment in the

Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950 and

Foreigners Order, 1948substituted the word

“Bangladesh”, for words “Afghanistan,

Bangladesh”.

A true copy of the Notification dated

18.07.2016 is produced and annexed

herewith as Annexure P-5(pages

7. On 31.07.2019, The office of the Register of

General Citizens and Registration issued

notification in pursuant to Rule 3(4) of

Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue

of National Identity Cards) Rules 2003,

wherein the Central Government decided to

prepare and update the population Register

between 1st April to 30th September 2020

 A copy of the notification dated 31.07.2019

issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs is

produced and annexed herewith as

Annexure P-6(pages

8. On 31.08.2019, In pursuant to the series of

Supreme Court orders in Assam

SanmilthaMahasanga v Union of India W.P.

(C) No 562/2012 & All Assam Public Work v

Union of India 274 of 2009, the Government

of Assam along with Union of India updated

the National Register of Citizens (NRC) for

the residents in the State of Assam.

9. The Final list of NRC for the resident of

Assam was published on 31.08.2019. There

were applications of 3.3 crore people in NRC

list and final list have included 3.11 crore

people and excluded 19.06 lakh people. It is

yet unclear exact number of how many

people belonging to Hindu religion and Islam

religion are being excluded by virtue of the

process of National Register of Citizens in the

State of Assam.
 A true copy of the order dated 31.08.2019

issued by State Coordinator of NRC is

produced and annexed herewith as

Annexure P-7(pages

10. On 20.11.2019, the Home Minister of the

Government of India announced the

Government plan for the Pan-India National

Register of Citizens to be carried out across

India. The Home Minister of Government of

India asserted that the process of NRC is

carried out in order update the citizens list,

but nothing would be done against any

particular religion.

A copy of the newspaper report dated

20.11.2019 is produced and annexed

herewith as Annexure P-8(pages

11. On 9.12.2019 the Citizenship Amendment

Bill, 2019 was introduced in Lok Sabha and

after a heated debate the same was passed

with a majority of 311 to 80. A true Copy of

the text of the debates in the Lok Sabha on

9.12.2019 is annexed herewith and marked

as Annexure P-9(pages
12. On 11.12.2019 The Citizenship Amendment

Bill, 2019 was introduced in Rajya Sabha and

after a heated debate the same was passed

with a majority of 125 to 105.

13. On 12.12.2019, The President assented to

the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019,

wherein it amended the Section 2(1)(b) and

amended clause is as follows:

“Provided that persons belonging to minority

communities, namely, Hindus, Sikhs,

Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from

Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, who

have been exempted by the Central

Government by or under clause (c)of sub-

section (2) of section 3 of the Passport (Entry

into India) Act, 1920 or from the application

of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946

or any order made thereunder, shall not be

treated as illegal migrants for the purposes of

that Act:”

'6B. (1) The Central Government or an

authority specified by it in this behalf may,

subject to such conditions, restrictions and

manner as may be prescribed, on an

application made in this behalf, grant a

certificate of registration or certificate of

naturalisation to a person referred to in the

proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (1) of

section 2.

(2) Subject to fulfilment of the conditions

specified in section 5 or the qualifications for

naturalisation under the provisions of the

Third Schedule, a person granted the

certificate of registration or certificate of

naturalisation under sub-section (1) shall be

deemed to be a citizen of India from the date

of his entry into India.

(3) On and from the date of commencement

of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019,

any proceeding pending against a person

under this section in respect of illegal

migration or citizenship shall stand abated on

conferment of citizenship to him:

Provided that such person shall not be

disqualified for making application for

citizenship under this section on the ground

 that the proceeding is pending against him

and the Central Government or authority

specified by it in this behalf shall not reject

his application on that ground if he is

otherwise found qualified for grant of

citizenship under this section:

Provided further that the person who makes

the application for citizenship under this

section shall not be deprived of his rights and

privileges to which he was entitled on the

date of receipt of his application on the

ground of making such application. A true

Copy of the Citizenship Amendment Act,

2019 is produced and annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure P-10(pages

14. 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,

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.

15. 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.

16. Thus being aggrieved, the Petitioners with

leave of this Hon’ble Court are filing the

present writ petition under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India on inter-alia the

following grounds:-

GROUNDS

RE: Religion based classification is an

impermissible classification and thereby

violates Article 14 of the Indian

Constitution
A. The Section 2 of CA, Act 2019 amended the

definition of illegal migrant and excluded

Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and

Christians from the definition of ‘illegal

migrant’.

B. Furthermore, the Section 2 of CA, Act 2019

allows the benefit of the naturalization under

Section 6B of Citizenship Act is limited to the

religious minority Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists,

Jains, Parsis and Christiansfrom the countries

limited to Afghanistan, Pakistan and

Bangladesh.

C. That, the religion based classification of CA,

Act 2019 is an impermissible classification

and violates Article 14 of the Indian

Constitution.

D. 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.

E. 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.

F. 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.

G. 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.

H. That, intelligible differentia based on

religionclearly constitute discrimination based

on impermissible or invalid classification.

Hence, of CA, Act 2019 is violation of Article

14 of the Constitution.

RE: The CA, ACT 2019 does not satisfy

the twin test of Article 14 of the Indian

Constitution

A. 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.

B. 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

C. 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.

D. 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

E. 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

baseddiscrimination 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.

F. Therefore, the CA, Act 2019 is a violation of

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

RE: The Religious/Country based

classification of CA, Act 2019 is

manifestly arbitrary and unreasonable

A. 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.

B. 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.

C. 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.

D. 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.

E. 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”.

F. 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.”

G. 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.

H. 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.

I. 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.

J. 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.

K. 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.
L. 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.

RE: CA Act, 2019 is based upon a

classification that has no rational

relation with the apparent object sought

to be achieved by the Act

A. 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.

B. 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.

C. 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.

RE: The Direct and Inevitable

consequence of CA, Act 2019 shall be

that the Pan-India NRC and proceeding

before Foreigner Tribunal would be

exclusively reserved to the Muslims and

thereby violates Article 14 of the Indian

Constitution
A. That, the fundamental rights violation of CA,

Act 2019 must be adjudged in the light of

‘direct and inevitable effect’ of the legislation

on the individuals belonging to the Muslim

migrants.

B. That, it is now well settled law that the

fundamental rights violations are considered

on the basis of direct and inevitable

consequence of the statute. This Hon’ble

Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab,

(1982) 3 SCC 24, wherein it was observed

“that in order to locate the fundamental right

violated by a statute, the court must consider

what is the direct and inevitable consequence

of the statute. The impugned statute may in

its direct and inevitable effect invade more

than one fundamental right and merely

because it satisfies the requirement of one

fundamental right, it is not freed from the

obligation to meet the challenge of another

applicable fundamental right.”

C. That, the direct and inevitable consequence

of promulgating the CA, Act 2019 would be

 that the Hindu migrants excluded from the

final list of NRC for the residents in Assam

published on 31.08.2019, wouldbe entitled

to get benefit of naturalization under Section

6B of Citizenship Act. However, the Muslim

migrants who stand in equal footing with the

Hindu migrants, are nevertheless denied the

same legal protection.

D. That, the proceedings before the Foreigner

Tribunal to determine whether the excluded

person from NRC List are illegal migrants,

shall be exclusively reserved to the

individuals belonging to the religious identity

i.e Islam.

E. That, the CA, Act 2019 by design and default

ensures that the people excluded from the

NRC list, who are belonging to the religion of

Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and

Christians would be able to seek protection

under get benefit and protection under CA,

Act 2019. However, the people excluded from

the NRC list belonging to Muslim identity

would face proceeding of Foreigner Tribunal.

 Therefore, the CA, Act 2019 ensures that the

proceeding before the Foreigner Tribunal and

detention would be directly targeted against

the Muslims alone.

F. On 20.11.2019, the Home Minister of

Government of India announced the plan to

start Pan-India NRC. The people fail to prove

their citizenship credentials through

documentary evidence would be excluded

from the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

G. That, the CA, Act 2019 ensures that the

excluded person belonging to Non-Islam

category would be entitled to get the benefit

and protection of Section 6B of Citizenship

Act. But, the excluded persons belonging to

the Islam religion are blatantly discriminated

and denied the protected vested under

Section 6B of Citizenship Act.

H. As a result, the inevitable consequence of

Pan-India NRC would be that, it ensures that

the declared ‘illegal migrant’ would be no one

except people belonging to the religion of

Islam. Additionally, the corollary of the

 aforesaid act is that the detained illegal

migrant would be disproportionately

comprised of people belonging to the Islam

religion.

I. Therefore, there is a direct and inevitable

consequence of CA, Act 2019 is that penal

consequences of failing to prove citizenship

shall be exclusively or at least

disproportionately targeted against the

persons belonging to the religion of Islam.

Hence, it violates Article 14 of the Indian

Constitution.

RE: The CA Act 2019 violates the core

principle of secularism and thereby

violates basic structure of the

Constitution

A. That, the CA, Act 2019 also violates the

principle of secularism, which is being

considered as the basic structure of the

constitution.

B. 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.

C. That, one of the basic principle of secularism

is that, it explicitly and implicitly prohibits the

establishment of theocratic state and

prevents the State from identifying itself

associated or favoring any particular religion

or religious sect or religions. The State is

mandated to accord equal treatment to all

religions and religious sects and

denominations. This same was substantiated

by this Hon’ble Court in S.R. Bommai v.

Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1.

D. 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 excluded the

protection to the Muslims. As a result, it

denied the equal treatment to all religion in

the eyes of law.

E. That, the CA, 2019 runs contrary to the

foundational value and principle of

‘Secularism’ as it does not intend to

countenanced the idea of treating the

minority as second class citizen. However,

the religious based classification of the CA,

Act 2019 violates the same and attempts to

classify the persons belonging to Muslim

would only be considered as an ‘illegal

migrant’.

F. Hence, the CA, Act 2019 is contrary to

principle and spirit of secularism and thereby

violates basic structure of the constitution.

RE: 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.

RE: The Citizenship (Amendment) Act,

2019 violates India’s international

obligation under UDHR and ICCPR

A. 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.

B. 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.

C. 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).

D. 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”.

E. 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.

F. 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.”

G. 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”.

H. 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

indicate a legislative desire to implement the

human rights regime founded on

 constitutional values and international

conventions acceded to by India”.

I. 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.

J. 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.

K. 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.

L. 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.

M. Therefore, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act,

2019 is a violation of India’s obligation under

International law.

RE: Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019

will cause widespread discrimination in

the NRC process

A. On November 20, 2019, the Union Home

Minister announced in Parliament that the

Government plans to conduct a Pan-India

National Register of Citizens (NRC).

According to the Home Minister’s speech the

process of Pan India NRC shall be carried out

across the country on the base line year of

1950 as the cut off-date.

B. Thus, with the passage of the Amendment

Act, and the nationwide implementation of

NRC, it shall ensure that those illegal

migrants who are Muslims shall be

prosecuted and, those illegal migrants who

are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis

and Christians such shall be given the benefit

of naturalization as an Indian Citizen.

C. Therefore all those Muslims who have been

excluded in such pan India NRC exercise shall

have to prove their citizenship before the

Foreigners Tribunal, all because they are

Muslims and not Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists,

Jains, Parsis and Christians. This blatant

discrimination put into legislation by the

Amendment Act is not only unconstitutional

but also inhumane and opposed to the very

idea of our Nation.

D. Currently 19.06 lakh residents of Assam have

been excluded from the NRC list of Assam.

However, it is unclear as to how many of

these are Hindus and how many Muslims.

However, the CA Act, 2019 will not clearly

 extend the benefit of naturalization to the

Hindus excluded in the said NRC, even

though the excluded persons who are

Muslims stand on a similar footing. But due

to the Amendment Act they are being

excluded from the benefits merely on the

basis of their faith.

E. That in view of the above it is in the interest

of justice and equity, the Petitioner seeks to

pray following directions from this Hon’ble

Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

PRAYER

In the circumstances it is most respectfully

prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be

pleased to:

(a) Issue a writ or direction declaring the

Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 to be in

violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and

striking down the same.

(b) Issue a writ or direction declaring the

Notifications bearing number GSR 685(E)

 dated 08.09.2015, the Notification bearing

number GSR 702 (E) dated 18.07.2016

Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 to be in

violation of Article 14 and 21 of the

Constitution and striking down the same.

(c) Issue a writ or direction declaring that the

Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 is

unconstitutional, being in violation of the Part

III of the Indian Constitution.

(d) Pass such other and further order/orders as

are deemed fit and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case

Drawn By Filled by

(Haris Beeran) (Pallavi Pratap)

Advocate Advocate for the petitioner

New Delhi

Drawn On:- 11.12.2019

Filed On:- 12.12.2019