TC 01 - Knight (P)

4TH CHRIST ACADEMY INSTITUTE OF LAW – NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024
TEAM CODE: TC 01_KNIGHT
4th CHRIST ACADEMY INSTITUTE OF LAW - National Moot

Court Competition 2024
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiana, 1950
Writ Petition No.______ Of 2024
IN THE MATTERS BETWEEN
ORGANISATION FOR THE REFUGEE

RIGHTS (ORR) – NGO … PETITIONER
AND
UNION OF INDIANA … RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

4TH CHRIST ACADEMY INSTITUTE OF LAW – NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sl.No. CONTENTS Pg.No.
01 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS …………………………………….. i
02 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………….... Ii
03 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ………………………………... vi
04 STATEMENT OF FACTS …………………………………………... vii
05 ISSUES RAISED ……………………………………………………... viii
06 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………...... ix
07 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ………………………………………... 1
08 PRAYER ……………………………………………………………… 20
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
¶ Paragraph
& And
v. Versus
AIR All India Reporter
Anr Another
Art. Article
International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of
CEDAW
Racial Discrimination Against Women
EU European Union
HC High Court
Hon‟ble Honourable
i.e. that is
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Right
International Covenant on Social, Cultural and Economic
ICESCR
Rights
No. Number
Ors. Others
Para/pp Paragraph
Pg No. Page Number
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reports
The Act People‟s Representation (Amendment) Act, 2019
u/s Under Section
UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
UOI Union of India
US United States
Vol. Volume
Memorandum for Petitioner i

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS
1. Black's Law Dictionary, 8th edition

2. B N Patel. "India and International Law", Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2005.
3. B. Shiva Rao, Framing of India's Constitution Select Documents, Vol. II, 1967
4. Cambridge Learners Dictionary, 1st edition
5. Constitution of India by J.N. Pandey, 44th edition 2023.
6. Constitution of India by D.D. Basu, 26th edition 2023
7. Constitution of India by V.N. Shukla, 13th edition 2023
8. Constitutional of India by H.M. Seervai, Vol. I & II, 4th edition 2023
9. G.S.Goodwill-Gill The refugee in International LawGuy S Goodwin Gill, The Refugee in
International Law, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996.
10. Indian Constitutional Law by M.P. Jain, 8th Edition, 2023
11. RanabirSamaddar, "Refugees and the State. Practices of Asylum and care in India 1947-
2000", SAGE publications, 2003.
12. RaginiTrakrooZutshi, JayashreeSatpute, Md. Saood Tahir, Refugees and the Law, HRLN, 2nd
edn.
ARTICLES
1. Arjun Nair, "National Refugee Law for India: Benefits and Roadblocks"
2. Bhairav Acharya, "The law, policy and practice of refugee protection in India", available at
on www.ssrn.com.
3. Helene Lambert, "International refugee law: dominant and emerging approaches".
4. ISIL Year Book of International Humanitarian and Refugee Law by T.Ananthachari
5. Mihika Poddar, "The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016: International Law on Religion-
Based Discrimination and Naturalisation Law", Indian Law Review, 2:1, 108-118, at pp.
110-111; Niraja Gopal Jayal, "Faith-based Citizenship: The Dangerous Path India is
Choosing", The India Forum, 13 November 2019
6. Rajeev Dhawan, "On model law for refugees: A response to the National Human
RightsCommission".
7. Right to Life Encompasses Non-refoulement , by Bernard Hibbitts
https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2021/06/indian-high-court-advances-refugee-policy/
8. Stephane Jaquemet, "The cross-fertilization of International Humanitarian law and
International Refugee law".
Memorandum for Petitioner ii

9. Wexon University Law Review, A Descriptive Study Of Refugees And Their Status In India,
by Ms. Ummul Waraah
STATUTES
1. The Citizenship Act, 1955

2. The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019
3. The Constitution if India, 1950
4. The Foreigners Act, 1946
5. The Passports Act, 1967
6. The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920
7. The Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939
INTERNATIONAL STATUTES
1. International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
against Women, 1979
2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Right, 1966
3. International Covenant on Social, Cultural and Economic Rights, 1966
4. UN Charter, 1945
5. UN Convention on Refugees, 1951
6. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
RULES & REGULATION
Order No.S.O.1234 (E) passed sub-section (1) of section 6B of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (57
of 1955) read with sub-rules (1) and (3) of rule 11A of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 (2024)
INDIAN CASES
1. Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 34 : AIR 2002 SC 1533...........02
2. Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, AIR 2000 SC 988, 997 : (2000) 2 SCC
465................................................................................................................................05
3. Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1886...........06
4. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (II), AIR 2000 SC 498 : (2000) 1 SCC 168............07
5. Faridabad CT. Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services, AIR 1997 SC 3801 : (1997) 7
SCC 752.......................................................................................................................05
6. Francis Coralie Vs. Union Territory of Delhi ,1981 AIR 746.....................................14
7. Gauri Shankar v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 55, at 58 : (1994) 6 SCC 349...........05
Memorandum for Petitioner iii

8. Grand Kakatiya Sheraton Hotel and Towers Employees & Workers Union v.
Srinivasa Resorts Ltd., (2009) 5 SCC 342 : AIR 2009 SC 2337.................................05
9. Jagannath Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1245 : (1962) 1 SCR
151................................................................................................................................02
10. John Vallamattom v. Union of India, (2003) 6 SCC 611 : AIR 2003 SC 2902...........05
11. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 : (1973) 4 SCC
225..........................................................................................................................07, 14
12. K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1...........................09
13. Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi vs. Union of India,1999 CRILJ
919................................................................................................................................16
14. Louis De Raedt v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 1886, Para 12.................................16
15. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,(1978)AIR 1978 SC 597.......................................14
16. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : AIR 2007 SC 71..........................02
17. Mohd. ShahebMahboob v. Dy. Custodian, AIR 1961 SC 1657: (1962) 2 SCR
371................................................................................................................................02
18. Mr Boghy v. Union of India (Civil Rule No 1847 of
1989)............................................................................................................................16
19. M.G. Badappanavar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC 260, at 264 : (2001) 2 SCC
666................................................................................................................................07
20. Nandita Haksar v. State of Manipur,W.P.(Crl.) No. 6 of 2021....................................15
21. Navtej Singh JoharVs. Union of India, (2018)10 SCC 1.......................................03, 14
22. NHRC vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh ,1996 AIR 1234, 1996 SCC (1) 742………..15
23. Reliance Energy Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn. Ltd., (2007) 8
SCC 1 : (2007) 11 JT1..................................................................................................02
24. Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P. (2002) 2 SCC 188, para 25..................................04
25. Shayaro Bano v Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1.........................................................04
26. S.R Bommai vs. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1........................................................07
27. U Myat Kayew and another v. State of Manipur and another, Guwahati High Court
1991, (Civil Rule No. 516 of 1991).............................................................................16
28. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241.......................................................09
29. Zoroastrian Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. District Registrar, Coop. Societies
(Urban), (2005) 5 SCC 632 : AIR 2005 SC 2306........................................................06
Memorandum for Petitioner iv

FOREIGN CASES
1. Belgium v. Senegal, [2012] ICJ Rep. 422....................................................................12
2. Hibaq Said Hashi. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 28 July 2017,
CCPR/C/120/D/2470/2014, Para. 9.9-9.10..................................................................18
3. Kaba v. Canada, Views adopted on 25 March 2010, CCPR/C/98/D/1465/2006, Para.
10.2...............................................................................................................................18
4. K. H. v. Denmark. Views adopted on 12 July 2016, CCPR/C/117/D/2462/2014, Para
8.8.................................................................................................................................18
5. Monge Contreras v. Canada, Views adopted on 27 March 2017,
CCPR/C/119/D/2613/2015, Para. 8.4..........................................................................11
6. M.C. v. Denmark, Decision on admissibility adopted on 9November 2015,
CEDAW/C/62/D/56/2013, para 9.3.............................................................................18
7. Nystrom v. Australia, UN Doc CCPR/C/102/D/1557/2007, 18 [7.4] .........................11
8. Stewart v. Canada, CCPR/C/58/D/538/1993 16 December 1996................................11
9. YickWo v. Hopkins( 118, U.S. 356)............................................................................02
Memorandum for Petitioner v

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner has approached the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of Indiana under Article 32 of the
Indiana Constitution, 1950
For kind perusal of Hon‟ble Court, Article 32 of the Indiana Constitution, 1950 is stated
below;
Article 32 of the Indiana Constitution, 1950

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 warrant 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 ill 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.
It sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case in the jurisdiction of the
Commission. The petitioner affirms that we shall accept any judgement of this Hon‟ble
Supreme Court of Indiana as final binding upon themselves and shall execute it in its entirely
and in good faith.
All of which are respectfully submitted
Memorandum for Petitioner vi

STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Republic of Indiana emerges as a nation with a rich cultural

heritage and active engagement in international affairs. Despiteit‟s
REFUGEE CRISIS efforts, Indiana finds itself grappling with a refugee crisis
IN THE REPUBLIC originating from its neighbouring country, Myania.Myania,is a
OF INDIANA. densely populated nation with a Buddhist majority and the Muslim
Roko ethnic minority.
In July 2019, massive way of violence in Myania‟s Rini state

forces 9,42,000 people to seek refuge in Indiana. And in December
ROKO REFUGEE 2020, an outbreak of deadly clashes in Myania led to influx of
INFLUX Roko refugees in their neighbouring country and Indiana.
Currently, One-fifth were settled in and around the Bore Bore
region in Indiana.
1. Absence of specific refugee legislation in Indiana.

2. Role of the judiciary in protecting refugee rights and interpreting
LEGAL AND constitutional provisions.
JUDICIAL 3. Legal battle over the extension of citizenship rights to Roko
DIFFICULTIES refugees.
In 2021, After the detention and deportation orders of Roko

refugees, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the
PIL FILED IN 2021 Supreme Court of Indiana seeking the extension of citizenship
rights to the Roko population. The Supreme Court directed the
government not to deport them unless a fair procedure prescribed
for such deportation is followed.
The amendment was adopted on 12 August 2019 it grants

citizenship to all, except Roko's, who arrived in India before 31
PEOPLES’S December 2016. It also provided that all those illegal migrants,
REPRESENTATION except for Roko', who came from neighbouring States shall be
(AMENDMENT ) entitled to citizenship of India.
ACT,2019
The constitutionality of the amended legislation is challenged in
the court by an NGO, Organization for the Refugee Rights (ORR),
CRITICISMS on the grounds the Amendment discriminates on Religion and
RAISED BY THE dignity, violation of international obligations. The legal battle
ORGANIZATION underscores the complex interplay between domestic law,
FOR REFUGEE international treaties, and fundamental rights in the context of
RIGHTS (ORR) refugee protection based on following criticisms; PR (Amendment)
Act discriminates Roko refugee on religion, Violation of
Constitution of Indiana under,
i.Article XIV ii. Article XXI iii.Article LI – c
All of which are respectfully submitted.
Memorandum for Petitioner vii

ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE1
Whether the People‟s Representation (Amendment) Act of 2019, in conjunction with the
People‟s Representation (Amendment) Rules, 2024, violates the principle of equality
enshrined in the Constitution of Indiana by discriminating on the basis of religion?
ISSUE2
Whether the denial of protection to the Roko refugees under the PR (Amendment) Act and its
corresponding rules constitutes a breach of Indiana‟s International obligations regarding
refugee rights and non-discrimination, as per various treaties and conventions?
ISSUE3
Whether the provisions of the People's Representation (Amendment) Act and its
accompanying rules align with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article XXI of the
Constitution of Indiana, specifically regarding the right to life and personal liberty, in light of
the ROKO refugees' circumstances and experiences?
Memorandum for Petitioner viii

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
The counsel for petitioner humbly submits before the Honourable Supreme Court of Indiana
ISSUE 01 that in the present case, the People‟s Representation (amendment) act of 2019, (herein after
referred as “PR ACT, 2019”) in conjunction with the People‟s Representation (amendment)
rules, 2024, violates the principle of equality enshrined in the constitution of Indiana by
discriminating the refugees on the religious basis. Firstly, Article 14 outlaws discrimination in
a general way and guarantees equality before law to all persons [1.1]. Secondly, Religion based
classification is an impermissible classification and thereby violates Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution [1.2]. Thirdly, The PR, ACT 2019 DOES not satisfy the twin test of Article 14 of
the Indiana Constitution [1.3]. Fourthly, The PR ACT, 2019 is based upon a classification that
has no rational relation with the apparent object sought to be achieved by the Act [1.4]. Fifthly,
The PR ACT 2019 violates the core principle of Secularism and thereby violates the Basic
Structure of the Constitution [1.5].
ISSUE 02 The counsel for Petitioner humbly submits before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of Indiana
that in the present case, the denial of protection to the Roko refugees under the PR
(Amendment) Act and its corresponding rules constitutes a breach of Indiana‟s
international obligations regarding refugee rights and non-discrimination, as per various
treaties and conventions. Firstly, Citizenship is a Universal International Human Right
[2.1]. Secondly, The People‟s Representation (Amendment) Act, 2019 violates Indiana‟s
International obligation under UDHR and ICCPR [2.2]. Thirdly, The People‟s
Representation (Amendment) Act, 2019 violates Indiana‟s International obligation under
CAT [2.3]. Fourthly, The People‟s Representation (Amendment) Act, 2019 violates
Indiana‟s International obligation under ICERD [2.4]
It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of Indiana that in the present case
ISSUE 03 the provisions of the People's Representation (Amendment) Act and its accompanying rules
does not align with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article XXI of the Constitution of
Indiana, specifically regarding the right to life and personal liberty, in light of the ROKO
refugees' circumstances and experiences. Firstly, The provisions of People‟s Representation
Act, 2019 violate Article XXI of the Indiana Constitution [3.1]. Secondly, The Arbitrary
Classification results in violation of Right to Live with Human Dignity [3.2]. Thirdly, The PR
Act, 2019 violates the principle of Non Refoulement [3.3].
Memorandum for Petitioner ix

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATION (AMENDMENT) ACT

OF 2019, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATION
(AMENDMENT) RULES, 2024, VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY
ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA BY DISCRIMINATING ON
THE BASIS OF RELIGION?
The counsel for petitioner humbly submits before the Honourable Supreme Court of Indiana that in
the present case, the People‟s Representation (amendment) act of 2019, (herein after referred as “PR
ACT, 2019”) in conjunction with the People‟s Representation (amendment) rules, 2024, violates the
principle of equality enshrined in the constitution of Indiana by discriminating the refugees on the
religious basis. Firstly, Article 14 outlaws discrimination in a general way and guarantees equality
before law to all persons [1.1]. Secondly, Religion based classification is an impermissible
classification and thereby violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution [1.2]. Thirdly, The PR Act,
2019 does not satisfy the twin test of Article 14 of the Indiana Constitution [1.3]. Fourthly, The PR
Act, 2019 is based upon a classification that has no rational relation with the apparent object sought to
be achieved by the Act [1.4]. Fifthly, The PR Act, 2019 violates the core principle of Secularism and
thereby violates the Basic Structure of the Constitution [1.5].
1. The present public interest writ petition raises a seminal important questions related to the
promulgation of PR, 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, Parsi and Christians coming from the neighbouring countries such as Delta
Republic, Republic of Islamic Federation, Ceylon, Khorasan and Myania, who entered into
India on or before the 31st day of December, 2016 1 . 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 passed by the
Parliament.
2. Article 14 of the Constitution embodies the principle of “non-discrimination”. However, it is
not a free standing provision. It has to be read in conjunction with rights conferred by other
1
Moot Proposition, Para 11 point (2).
Memorandum for Petitioner 1

articles like Art. 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 refers to “right to life” and embodies
several aspects of life. It includes “opportunity”, Articles 21 and 14 are the heart of the
chapter on Fundamental Rights. They cover myriad features of life2.
1.1 ARTICLE 14 OUTLAWS DISCRIMINATION IN A GENERAL WAY AND

GUARANTEES EQUALITY BEFORE LAW TO ALL PERSONS
1. The Constitution of India guarantees the Right to Equality through Article 14. “Equality is
one of the magnificent corner-stones of Indian democracy.”3 The doctrine of equality before
law is a necessary corollary of Rule of Law which pervades the Indiana
Constitution 4 .Whenever the Rule of equality is violated by the statutes enacted by the
Government the democratic nature of Indiana Constitution is called into question.
2. A constitution bench of the Supreme Court has declared in no uncertain terms that equality is
a basic feature of the constitution and although the emphasis in the earlier decisions evolved
around discrimination and classification, the content of Article 14 got expanded conceptually
and has recognized the principles to comprehend the doctrine of promissory estoppels non
arbitrariness, compliance with rules of natural justice eschewing irrationality etc.5 When the
Government enacted the PR Act, 2019 along with 2024 rules which is completely irrational in
nature, results in violation of Article 14 of the Indiana Constitution.
3. There are two concepts are involved in Art. 14, viz., „equality before law‟ and „equal
protection of laws‟. The second concept, „equal protection of laws‟, is positive in content. It
does not mean that identically the same law should apply to all persons, or that every law
must have a universal application within the country irrespective of differences of
circumstances. Equal Protection of the laws does not postulate equal treatment of all persons
without distinction. What it postulates is the application of the same laws alike and without
discrimination to all persons similarly situated. It denotes equality of treatment in equal
circumstances. It implies that among equals the law should be equal and equally administered,
that the like should be treated alike without distinction of race, religion, wealth, social status
or political influence. 6 Therefore, it is clear that discrimination based on religion is
completely void.
4. The classic case on the point is Yick Wo v. Hopkins 7 an American case. Where the U.S.
Supreme Court held that the ordinance has been administered with “a mind so unequal and
oppressive as to amount to a practical denial by the State” of equal protection of laws. Though
2
Reliance Energy Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn. Ltd., (2007) 8 SCC 1 : (2007) 11 JT1.
3
THOMMEN, J., in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477 : 1992 Supp (3) SCC 212
4
Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 34 : AIR 2002 SC 1533
5
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : AIR 2007 SC 71.
6
Jagannath Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1245 : (1962) 1 SCR 151; Mohd. Shaheb Mahboob
v. Dy. Custodian, AIR 1961 SC 1657 : (1962) 2 SCR 371.
7
Yick Wo v. Hopkins( 118, U.S. 356.)

the law itself may be fair on its face, yet, if it is administered by public authority “with an evil
eye and an unequal hand”, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations
between persons in similar circumstances, the denial of equal justice is still within the
prohibition of Art. 14. This Article secures all persons in India “not only against arbitrary
laws but also against arbitrary application of laws.” It ensures non-discrimination in state
action both in the legislative and the administrative spheres.
1.2 RELIGION BASED CLASSIFICATION IS AN IMPERMISSIBLE CLASSIFICATION

AND THEREBY VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
1. Section 2 of PR, Act 2019 amended the definition of illegal migrant and excluded Hindus,
Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsi and Christians from the definition of „illegal migrant’.
Furthermore, the Section 2 of PR, Act 2019 allows the benefit of the naturalization under
Section 6B of PR Act is limited to the religious minority Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains,
Parsi and Christians from the countries in neighbour. That, the religion based classification of
PR, Act 2019 is an impermissible classification and violates Article 14 of the Indiana
Constitution.
2. That the PR 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 effectuates discrimination on the basis of the intrinsic and core identity
of the individual i.e. religious identity of the individual. That, PR, Act 2019 explicitly
discriminates against the Roko refugees on the basis of religion. The Act extends the benefit
to individuals belonging Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Pari and Christians, but excludes the
same benefit to the individuals belonging to the other religion. Since, PR, 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.
3. That, this Hon‟ble Court in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India8, 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 other religious class must not be excluded from the benefit under
Section 6B of the PR Act, 2019 on the basis of their religious identity. Therefore, the religious
based classification is impermissible principle to be used for the purpose of classification.
4. 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 PR, Act 2019 has
founded its intelligible differentia on the basis of religion, which is core identity of the
8
Navtej Singh Johar Vs. Union of India, (2018)10 SCC 1

individual. That, intelligible differentia based on religion clearly constitute discrimination

based on impermissible or invalid classification. Hence, of PR Act 2019 is violation of Article
14 of the Constitution.
5. The country based classification of the PR Act 2019 is manifestly arbitrary. The impugned
Section 2(1)(b) of PR Act 2019 only permits the illegal migrant belonging to religious
minorities, who faced persecution from Delta Republic, Republic of Islamic Federation,
Ceylon, Khorasan and Myania would be entitled to benefit of naturalization by virtue of PR
Act 2019. That, this Hon‟ble Court in Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P.9, wherein 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 India10 had also noted that 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. Another notable principle developed by the Supreme Court out of Art. 14 are that every
action of the government, or any of its instrumentalities, must be informed by reason. Any
state action which is not informed by reason cannot be protected as it would be easy for the
citizens to question such an action as being arbitrary. “Non-arbitrariness, being a necessary
concomitant of the rule of law, it is imperative that all actions of every public functionary in
whatever sphere must be guided by reason and not humour, whim, caprice or personal
predilections of the persons entrusted with the task on behalf of the State and exercise of all
powers must be for public good instead of being an abuse of power.” Therefore, it is humbly
submits that in the present case, the stature enacted by the Government of Indiana is a clear
violation of Article 14 and is completely arbitrary in nature.
1.3 THE PR, ACT 2019 DOES NOT SATISFY THE TWIN TEST OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE
INDIANA CONSTITUTION
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 PR, Act 2019 runs contrary to the concept of equality enshrined in the
9
Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P. (2002) 2 SCC 188, Para 25
10
Shayaro Bano v Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1

Constitution. The religious classification of PR, 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
2. The principle of equality of law thus means not that the same law should apply to everyone
but that a law should deal alike with all in one class; that there should be an equality of
treatment under equal circumstances. It means “that equals should not be treated unlike and
unlikes should not be treated alike. Likes should be treated alike”11.That the classification in
the PR, Act 2019 is not founded on the basis of intelligible differentia. The yardstick for the
purpose of differentiating in the PR Act 2019 is that the „religious persecuted minorities‟
belonging to the country of Republic, Republic of Islamic Federation, Ceylon, Khorasan and
Myania. 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.
3. All persons in similar circumstances shall be treated alike both in privileges and liabilities
imposed 12 .The denial of similar benefit accrued in PR Act 2019 to the similarly situated
persons belonging to the minority sect, who faces similar persecution alike religious
minorities (Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsi and Christians) clearly constitutes an
unreasonable classification and violates Article 14 of the Indiana Constitution.
1.4 THE PR ACT, 2019 IS BASED UPON A CLASSIFICATION THAT HAS NO RATIONAL
RELATION WITH THE APPARENT OBJECT SOUGHT TO BE ACHIEVED BY THE ACT
1. The court has held that even if a law cannot be declared ultra vires on the ground of hardship,
it can be so declared on the ground of total unreasonableness applying the Wednesbury
“unreasonableness”.13 The benefit of “equality before law” and “equal protection of law”
accrues to every person in Indiana whether a citizen or not. As the Supreme Court has
observed on this point:
“We are a country governed by the Rule of Law. Our Constitution confers certain
rights on every human-being and certain other rights on citizens. Every person is
entitled to equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws.” 14
11
Gauri Shankar v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 55, at 58 : (1994) 6 SCC 349
12
John Vallamattom v. Union of India, (2003) 6 SCC 611 : AIR 2003 SC 2902
13
Grand Kakatiya Sheraton Hotel and Towers Employees & Workers Union v. Srinivasa Resorts Ltd., (2009) 5
SCC 342 : AIR 2009 SC 2337.
14
Faridabad CT. Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services, AIR 1997 SC 3801 : (1997) 7 SCC 752. Also, Chairman,
Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, AIR 2000 SC 988, 997 : (2000) 2 SCC 465

Thus, the PR Act, 2019 is completely unreasonable and further it violates the article 14 of the
Indiana constitution.
2. 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 achieve by the Act, giving
relief to refugees who face religious discrimination. The Amendment Act is destructive of the
basic structure which is 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 Indiana of promotion of
international peace and order by alienating particular religion and fostering respect for
international law on refugees, that does not permit discrimination on the basis of religion. The
principle enunciated in the Charter of the United Nations is that human beings shall enjoy
fundamental rights and freedoms without discrimination15.
3. 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
arbitrarily presumes that all Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Christian and Parsi refugees have fled their
home countries solely on account of religious persecution. The government and other public
authorities must act reasonably and fairly and that each action of such authorities must pass
the test of reasonableness16. Additionally, the legislature has deliberately selected particular
religious refugees from the neighbouring countries and left the rest unheard depicts deliberate
defiance of article 14 of the Constitution of Indiana.
4. Further, Articles 14 and 15 read in the light of the preamble to the Constitution reflect the
thinking of Indiana Constitution makers and prevent any discrimination based on religion or
origin in the matter of equal treatment or employment and to apply the same even in respect
of a cooperative society or in any actions of the Government 17 . When the legislature
irrationally selected particular religious refugees from the neighbouring countries and left the
rest is completely in no connection with the objective to be achieved by the PR Act, 2019.18
1.5 THE PR ACT 2019 VIOLATES THE CORE PRINCIPLE OF SECULARISM AND
THEREBY VIOLATES THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION
1. It may be worthwhile to note that Art. 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
194819, declares that all are equal before the law and are entitled with-out any discrimination
15
UN Charter, 1945
16
Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1886
17
Zoroastrian Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. District Registrar, Coop. Societies (Urban), (2005) 5 SCC 632 :
AIR 2005 SC 2306.
18
Moot Proposition, Para 12
19
Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the
law.

to the equal protection of laws. By and large the same concept of equality inheres in Art. 14
of the Indiana Constitution.
2. It may be noted that the right to equality has been declared by the Supreme Court as a basic
feature of the Constitution. The Constitution is wedded to the concept of equality. The
Preamble to the Constitution emphasizes upon the principle of equality as basic to the
Constitution. This means that even a constitutional amendment offending the right to equality
will be declared invalid. Neither Parliament nor any State Legislature can transgress the
principle of equality.20 This principle has been recently reiterated by the Supreme Court in
Badappanavar21 in the following words:
“Equality is a basic feature of the Constitution of India and any treatment of equals
unequally or unequal’s as equals will be violation of basic structure of the
Constitution of India.”
3. That, the PR, Act 20019 also violates the principle of secularism, which is being considered
as the basic structure of the constitution. That, this Hon‟ble Court of India in S.R. Bommai v.
Union of India22, 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
constitutional philosophy. 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 favouring any particular religion or religious sect or religions.
The State is mandated to accord equal treatment to all religions and religious sects and
denominations.23
4. That, the PR, Act 2019 incorporates a process of acquiring citizenship on the basis of
religious identity. The person belonging to the excluded religion would not able to acquire
citizenship through naturalization. The PR Act 2019 implicitly enabled a citizenship law
based on religion. It had explicitly associated or favoured a group of religion such as Hindus,
Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians. As a result, it denied the equal treatment to all
religion in the eyes of law.
5. That, the PR Act 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 PR, Act 2019 violates the same and
attempts to classify the persons belonging to excludes religion would only be considered as an
„illegal migrant‟. Hence, the PR Act 2019 is contrary to principle and spirit of secularism and
thereby violates basic structure of the constitution.
20
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 : (1973) 4 SCC 225; Indra Sawhney v. Union of
India (II), AIR 2000 SC 498 : (2000) 1 SCC 168;
21
M.G. Badappanavar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC 260, at 264 : (2001) 2 SCC 666
22
S.R Bommai vs. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1
23
Ibid

Therefore, it is humbly submitted that in the present case, the People‟s Representation (Amendment)
Act of 2019, in conjunction with the People‟s Representation (Amendment) Rules, 2024, violates the
principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution of Indiana by discriminating on the basis of
religion.
ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE DENIAL OF PROTECTION TO THE ROKO

REFUGEES UNDER THE PR (AMENDMENT) ACT AND ITS CORRESPONDING
RULES CONSTITUTES A BREACH OF INDIANA’S INTERNATIONAL
OBLIGATIONS REGARDING REFUGEE RIGHTS AND NON-DISCRIMINATION,
AS PER VARIOUS TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS?
The counsel for Petitioner humbly submits before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of Indiana that in the
present case, the denial of protection to the Roko refugees under the PR (Amendment) Act and its
corresponding rules constitutes a breach of Indiana‟s international obligations regarding refugee rights
and non-discrimination, as per various treaties and conventions. Firstly, Citizenship is a Universal
International Human Right [2.1]. Secondly, The People‟s Representation (Amendment) Act, 2019
violates Indiana‟s International obligation under UDHR and ICCPR [2.2]. Thirdly, The People‟s
Representation (Amendment) Act, 2019 violates Indiana‟s International obligation under CAT [2.3].
Fourthly, The People‟s Representation (Amendment) Act, 2019 violates Indiana‟s International
obligation under ICERD [2.4]
2.1 CITIZENSHIP: A UNIVERSAL RIGHT IN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
1. 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.
2. 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
antidiscrimination norm and the principle that statelessness should be avoided have emerged
to constrain state discretion on citizenship under International Law.
2.2 THE PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2019 VIOLATES

INDIANA’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. The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 directly
violates Article 26 of ICCPR24. The new enactment of PR Act, 2019 is not in conformity
with India‟s international obligations.
2. 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). The India has a constitutional duty to
honour these internationally recognized rules and principles. Article 5125 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”.
3. 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. 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.”
4. The Supreme Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan 26 , 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”.
5. Similarly, the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India27, 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
24
UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment No. 18: Non-discrimination, UN
Doc.HRI/GEN/1/Rev.7 (Nov. 10, 1989).
25
Article 51 if Indiana Constitution, 1950
26
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241
27
K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1

implement the human rights regime founded on constitutional values and international
conventions acceded to by India”.
6. 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. The Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 2019, is patently premised on the discrimination against the Muslims. The
PR Act, 2019 ensures that the benefit of naturalization to the illegal migrants from Delta
Republic, Republic of Islamic Federation, Ceylon, Khorasan and Myania, to persons
belonging to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians, except Muslims.
7. That, the PR (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. That,
the PR (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.
8. Article 15(2) of the UDHR states that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their nationality
nor denied the right to change their nationality. Nationality and citizenship are often used
interchangeably under international law, but are related concepts. The UN Commission on
Human Rights affirmed that the right to a nationality is a fundamental human right, and
arbitrary deprivation of nationality on racial, national, ethnic, religious, political, or gender
grounds is a violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
9. Indiana bears no legal obligation in this regard since Indiana has neither ratified the
Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (1954) nor the Convention on the
Reduction of Statelessness (1964).28 These two international conventions mandate the state to
protect the stateless population. Here comes the role of ICCPR whose article 12(4) technically
protects these stateless populations. Article 12(4) of the ICCPR provides that no one shall be
arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country. According to ICCPR General
Comment on article 12, it becomes clear that clause 4 of article 12 contains an implied
restriction on mass deportations to other countries.29
28
Sitharamam Kakarala, India And the Challenge of Statelessness 3 (National Law University Delhi Press,
Delhi, 2015)
29
UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment No. 27: Article 12 Freedom of Movement, UN Doc.
CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9 (Nov. 2, 1999).

10. In Stewart v. Canada30, the UNHRC interpreted the phrase “his own country” and observed
that there exists a category of individuals from whom their nationality has been withdrawn
but they continue to retain a special bond with the country. Such a category has the right to
enter and remain in their country as they are sheltered under Article 12(4) of the ICCPR.
Later on, in the case of Nystrom v. Australia31, the UNHRC again interpreted the phrase "his
own country" in a broader sense and stated that there are several factors that determine "his
own country": language is spoken, duration of residence in the country and family ties.
According to the UNHRC, even in the absenteeism of nationality, these factors create a
powerful bond between the individual and the state. It can be said that if the proposed PR Act,
2019 along with its rules is conducted nationwide, it may result in large-scale deportation of
stateless individuals which includes long-term residents who, because of their extended stay
in India for decades, may have adopted the local languages and developed similar religious
practices.

INDIANA’S INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATION UNDER CAT
1. The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment popularly known as Convention Against Torture (CAT) was adopted by the
United Nations General Assembly in 1984 which came into force in 1987.Article 3 of the
CAT provides that no state party shall return, expel or extradite a person to another state when
there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in the menace of being exposed to
torture. The Citizenship Amendment Act, when implemented with the NRC on a nationwide
scale, will result in large-scale deportation of people to their native countries.
2. The Human Rights Committee, while interpreting the scope of Article 7 of the ICCPR, has
stated that the covenant encompasses the obligation not to extradite, deport, expel or
otherwise remove a person from their territory, where there are substantial grounds for
believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm32. In Monge Conteras v. Canada33, the
Human Rights Committee has stated that the principle of non- refoulement cannot be
overridden on the grounds of national security. Any such threat would have to be addressed, if
necessary, through other means that are compatible with the obligations under the covenant.
30
UN Human Rights Committee, Views: Communication No. 538/1993, UN Doc CCPR/C/58/D/538/1993
(Nov. 1, 1996).
31
UN Human Rights Committee, Views: Communication No 1557/2007, UN Doc CCPR/C/102/D/1557/2007
(Sept. 1, 2011).
32
UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment No. 20: Article 7 (Prohibition of Torture, or Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment), U.N. Doc. HRI/ GEN/1/Rev.7 (Mar. 10, 1992).
33
UN Human Rights Committee, Views: Communication No. 2613/2015, UN Doc. CCPWC/1 19/0/2613/2015

As per the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the principle of non-refoulement
has become a part of customary international law.34
3. The International Court of Justice in the case of Belgium v. Senegal 35, where the question
before the court was concerned with the obligation to prosecute or extradite, stated that “the
prohibition of torture is a part of customary international law and it has become a peremptory
norm or jus cogens36”. Therefore, the principle of non-refoulement is also binding on India
irrespective of whether India has acceded to the Refugee Convention of 1951 or not. From the
above-mentioned texts, it can be concluded that India is technically bound to abide by the
provisions of the Convention Against Torture.

INDIANA’S INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATION UNDER ICERD
1. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

(ICERD) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1965 and it came into
force in 1969 37 . The term „racial discrimination‟ is a wider term which includes any
distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or
ethnic origin…". These objectives of the ICERD are aimed at creating a world order that
prohibitany form of citizenry discrimination or denial of religious and cultural freedom and
ensure the recognition of human rights of all linguistic and religious groups. India has ratified
this convention in 196838.The legal method used by states to address the violation of this
convention is known as an interstate mechanism.
2. Article 1(2) provides that ICERD shall not apply to distinctions, restrictions, exclusion or
preferences which are made by state parties between citizens and non-citizens. Article 1(3)
provides that the ICERD shall not be interpreted to affect, in any way, the provisions of the
state parties concerning nationality, citizenship or naturalization if they do not discriminate
against specific nationality. The plain reading of article 5 shows that it prohibits state parties
from discriminating based on nationality. Therefore, by applying the Act to only three
countries, the legislature has narrowed the scope of the Act and it has, knowingly or
unknowingly, infringed upon the provisions of the ICERD. Hence, it has paved the way for
34
UNHCR Note on the Principle of Non-Refoulement, 1997, available at:
https://www.refworld.org/docid/438c6d972.html
35
Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal) (Judgment) [2012] ICJ
Rep. 422
36
Jus Cogens forms a part of international law from which no derogation is possible. Marjorie M. Whiteman,
“Jus Cogens in International Law, with a Projected List” 7 Georgia Journal of International and Comparative
Law 609 (1977).
37
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965.
38
Shurvo Prosun Sarker, Refugee Law in India: The Road from Ambiguity to Protection 22 (Springer, 2017)

other member states to address the violations of the provisions of ICERD by using inter-state
mechanisms against Indiana.
Therefore, it is submitted that the People‟s Representation Amendment Act, 2019 must be amended to
bring it in consonance with international laws, to enable equal protection of genuinely persecuted
persons, and to prohibit discrimination on the basis of nationality or religion. The amended
framework should take into account "the persecuted and the refugees of all religions", as Swami
Vivekananda has said at the Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893. The accession to the UN
Refugee Convention 1951 and its protocol of 1967 is the current need for Indiana and it will be
favourable for India to develop a comprehensive refugee law.
ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF THE PEOPLE'S REPRESENTATION

(AMENDMENT) ACT AND ITS ACCOMPANYING RULES ALIGN WITH THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE XXI OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA, SPECIFICALLY REGARDING THE RIGHT TO
LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY, IN LIGHT OF THE ROKO REFUGEES'
CIRCUMSTANCES AND EXPERIENCES?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of Indiana that in the present case the
provisions of the People's Representation (Amendment) Act and its accompanying rules does not
align with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article XXI of the Constitution of Indiana,
specifically regarding the right to life and personal liberty, in light of the ROKO refugees'
circumstances and experiences. Firstly, The provisions of People‟s Representation Act, 2019 violate
Article XXI of the Indiana Constitution [3.1]. Secondly, The Arbitrary Classification results in
violation of Right to Live with Human Dignity [3.2]. Thirdly, The PR Act, 2019 violates the principle
of Non Refoulement [3.3].
3.1 THE PROVISIONS OF PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATION ACT, 2019 VIOLATES

ARTICLE XXI OF THE INDIANA CONSTITUTION
1. The People's Representation Amendment Act (PR Act) 2019 has been criticized for
potentially violating Article 21 of the Indian Constitution because it discriminates on the basis
of religion, which could be seen as infringing on the right to equality and non-discrimination
guaranteed by Article 14, and indirectly, the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
The counsel argue that by granting expedited citizenship to certain religious minorities while
excluding others, the PR Act, 2019 discriminates against a particular religion, thus violating
the principle of equality before law. This discrimination could be construed as a violation of

Article 21, as it undermines the right to equality and non-discrimination, which are essential
components of the right to life and personal liberty.
2. The Supreme Court interpreted Article 21 expansively, stating that the right to life and
personal liberty is not limited to mere animal existence but includes within its ambit the right
to live with dignity. The court held that any law or procedure that deprives a person of their
personal liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable. The counsel humbly submits that by
discriminating against certain religious minorities, the PR Act, 2019 fails to meet the standard
of being just, fair, and reasonable39. Further, that the PR Act, 2019 undermines the dignity of
individuals belonging to excluded religious groups and therefore violates Article 21.
3. One relevant case law is the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of Indiana in
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)40, where the court established the doctrine of
basic structure. This doctrine holds that while Parliament has the power to amend the
Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure, which includes fundamental rights such as
those enshrined in Article 21. Therefore, it is submitted that the PR Act, 2019 violates the
basic structure of the Constitution by discriminating on the basis of religion, thus infringing
on the right to equality and non-discrimination, which are essential components of Article 21.
4. Another relevant case is the Supreme Court's judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of
India (2018)41, where the court decriminalized consensual same-sex relations, affirming the
right to privacy and personal autonomy under Article 21.Therefore the counsel humbly
submits that the PR Act, 2019 violates this right by discriminating against certain religious
minorities and infringing on their right to equality and non-discrimination. While these cases
may not directly address the CAA, they establish legal principles that could be applied to
challenge its constitutionality under Article 21.
5. The PR (Amendment) Act, 2019 aims to address the plight of persecuted minorities; its
exclusionary nature raises constitutional and ethical concerns. Any assessment of an action
must consider the impact on Roko refugees‟ in relation with Article XXI and whether it
upholds the principles of equality, non-discrimination, and human dignity enshrined in the
Indiana Constitution.
6. The Supreme Court said that the state was bound to protect the life and liberty of every
human being, be he a citizen or otherwise and that the state cannot tolerate or permit anybody
or group of persons to threaten other person or group of persons.42The exclusionary nature of
the PR Act, 2019, which provides a fast-track pathway to citizenship for refugees‟ from
neighbouring countries, could result in discrimination against Muslim refugees who were also
39
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)AIR 1978 SC 597
40
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)4 SCC 225
41
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India2018 (10) SCC 1
42
NHRC vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh 1996 AIR 1234, 1996 SCC (1) 742

fled to Indiana but ineligible for citizenship under the PR Act, 2019which classifies the
refugees‟ solely based on their religion. This could lead to situations where Muslim refugees
face prolonged statelessness, uncertainty about their legal status, or even deportation to their
countries of origin, where they may face persecution. Such outcomes could potentially violate
the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article XXI by subjecting Roko
refugees‟ to conditions that undermine their dignity, security, and freedom.
3.2 THE ARBITRARY CLASSIFICATION RESULTS IN VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO LIVE

WITH HUMAN DIGNITY
1. Article 21 encompasses the right to live with dignity. The Roko refugees, who faces
discrimination or persecution in their home countries should also been considered in the PR
Act's provisions. In Nandita Haksar v. State of Manipur43, decided May 3, 2021, the High
Court of Manipur (an Indiana state that borders Myanmar) granted seven Myanmarese
citizens who had illegally entered India without documentation permission to approach the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Office in Delhi. This High Court
decision is important because it outlines Indiana‟s duties and obligations towards “refugees”
and “asylum seekers,” despite Indiana being a non-signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention.
The Court found that the principle of non - refoulement, i.e. the fundamental right to life, is
encompassed in Article 21 of the Indiana Constitution.
2. The Constitution of India guarantees equal protection to all and forbids the state from
depriving anybody‟s life and personal liberty without procedure established by law. The right
to life and liberty mentioned in Article 21, which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court
to mean the right to live with dignity are available to all persons. A noncitizen is certainly a
person, and hence is also entitled to those rights.
3. In National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh44, the question was
about the Chakma refugees, who were illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. The Supreme
Court observed that the fundamental right of life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution is also available to Chakmas, though they were not Indian citizens.
Therefore, the critics are of the view that the Citizenship Amendment Act is unconstitutional
as it violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Act violates Article 21 by creating a
separate class of individuals who would be rendered stateless. It violates the right to belong to
India as a citizen with dignity protected by Article 21.
4. In the judgment of Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi vs. Union of India45 the High Court of
Gujarat held that the principle of non-refoulment avoids ejection of a displaced person where
43
Nandita Haksar v. State of Manipur W.P.(Crl.) No. 6 of 2021
44
NHRC vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh 1996 AIR 1234, 1996 SCC (1) 742
45
Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi vs. Union of India1999CRILJ919

his life or freedom would be undermined by virtue of his race, religion, nationality, enrolment
of a specific social gathering or political conclusion. Its application ensures life and freedom
of a person irrespectively of his nationality.
5. In Louis De Raedt v. Union of India 46 , the court held that even non- citizens have the
fundamental right to life, liberty and dignity. This right of life is followed by right against
arrest and detention47. In one case48, the Guwahati High Court ordered for interim bail for
Burmese refugees who were detained and the court was considerate in not insisting on local
sureties. Similarly the courts have given liberal interpretation in detention cases so that the
UNHCR can determine the status of the refugee49. In another case of Majid Ahmed Abdul
Majid Mohd. Jad Al-Hak v. Union of India50, the Court upheld that food and medical care
should be provided to detainees as they are the bare minimum essentials for survival. Apart
from the above mentioned rights, the refugees are given rights to practice and profess their
own religion subject to reasonable restrictions that are applicable to everyone including
aliens 51 . They are given the right to establish educational institutions and form peaceful
assemblies.
3.3 THE PR ACT, 2019 VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLE OF NON REFOULEMENT
1. The CAA protects Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jain, Parsi and Sikh migrants from Delta
Republic, Republic of Islamic Federation, Ceylon, Khorasan and Myaniawho meet the
conditions set out in the CAA from being returned to a country where they would face
persecution on religious grounds, by addressing their irregular migration status by providing
them with an expedited pathway to citizenship. While this is a worthy and commendable
objective, it raises a number of issues related to Indiana's wider human rights obligations in
the context of the fundamental principle of non-refoulement.
2. The principle of non-refoulement is enshrined in international human rights law, international
refugee law, international humanitarian law and customary international law. Since it was
formally codified in the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, it has been developed
and integrated into international human rights instruments. Among other treaties, this
principle is enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and implicitly
established in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). 52
46
Louis De Raedt v. Union of India AIR 1981 SC 1886, Para 12.
47
See Article 22 of the Indian Constitution.
48
U MyatKayew and another v. State of Manipur and another, Guwahati High Court 1991, (Civil Rule No. 516
of 1991
49
Mr Boghy v. Union of India (Civil Rule No 1847 of 1989)
50
Delhi High Court 1997, Criminal Writ Petition No 60 of 1997
51
See Article 25-28 of the Indian Constitution
52
The Human Rights Committee has indicated that the obligation stipulated in article 2 of the ICCPR, requires
that States Parties respect and ensure the ICCPR rights for all persons in their territory and all persons under

3. The principle of non-refoulement under international refugee law prohibits return in any
manner whatsoever to threats to life or freedom on account of five grounds, including but not
restricted to religion53. Under international human rights law return is prohibited where there
is a real risk of the individual suffering "irreparable harm", which is a concept broader than
persecution and does not require that the risk of harm be linked to specific grounds.
4. Under international human rights law, the principle of non-refoulement prohibits the
expulsion, return or extradition of a person in the territory of a State or under its jurisdiction
or effective control to another State when there are substantial grounds for believing that the
person would be in danger of being subjected to irreparable harm, such as violations of the
right to life, torture, ill-treatment and enforced disappearance, among others. This principle
applies to all forms of expulsion or return of persons, regardless of their nationality, legal
status, immigration status, statelessness or citizenship. It is an absolute principle from which
no derogation is possible.54
5. The UN human rights treaty bodies have considered a number of situations to amount to a
risk of irreparable harm related inter alia to risks of sexual and gender-based violence 55 ,
female genital mutilation,56 and risks related to persecution on account of sexual orientation,57
the imposition of the death penalty and prolonged isolation. Further, in certain circumstances,
the Human Rights Committee has indicated that the requisite individual assessment of
possible personal and real risk of irreparable harm needs to take into account among other
their control entails an obligation not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their
territory, where there are substantial grounds. for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm, such as
that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, either in the country to which removal is to be effected or
in any country to which the person may subsequently he removed, See UN Human Rights Committee, General
comment no. 31 [80], The nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States Parties believing that he or
she is at real risk of irreparable part, such as, but by no means limited to, those contemplated under articles to
the Covenant, 26 May 2004,CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13, Para 12. Likewise, the Committee on the Rights of the
Child has stated that States shall not reject a child at a border or return him or her to a country where there are
substantial grounds for subsequently be removed. Such non-refoulement obligations apply irrespective of
whether serious violations of those rights guaranteed under the CRC originate from non-State actors or whether
such violations are directly intended or are the indirect6 (1) and 37 of the CRC, either in the country to which
removal is to be effected or in any country to which the child may consequence of States parties action or
inaction. See CMW and CRC, Joint general comment No. 3 (2017) of the Committee on the Protection of the
Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families and No. 22 (2017) of the Committee on the
Rights of the Child on the general principles regarding the human rights of children in the context of
international migration, 16 November 2017, CMW/C/GC/3-CRC/C/GC/22, Para. 46. See also Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Article 3 and the International
Convention for the Protection of All Persons Against Enforced Disappearances Article 16
53
These are race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. See 1951
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, article 33(1)
54
Monge Contreras v. Canada, Views adopted on 27 March 2017, CCPR/C/119/D/2613/2015, Para. 8.4
55
CEDAW, Communication No. 56/2013, M.C. v. Denmark, Decision on admissibility adopted on 9 November
2015, CEDAW/C/62/D/56/2013, para 9.3
56
UN Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 1465/2006, Kaba v. Canada, Views adopted on 25 March
2010, CCPR/C/98/D/1465/2006, para. 10.2.
57
UN Human Rights Committee, communication No. 2462/2014M. K. H. v. Denmark. Views adopted on 12
July 2016, CCPR/C/117/D/2462/2014, para 8.8

elements, access or level of enjoyment of economic and social rights, in particular when there
is no access to the essential levels of these rights58. These factors, require consideration under
human rights law in the context of non-refoulement obligations, and are not limited to
circumstances involving potential risks of religious persecution
6. The Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment has maintained that States must interpret and apply the principle of non-
refoulement in good faith and, therefore, cannot inter alia lawfully pass any law or regulation,
engage in any policy or practice, which would undermine or defeat its object and purpose,
which is to ensure that States refrain from any conduct or arrangement which they know, or
ought to know in the circumstances, would subject or expose migrants to acts or risks of
torture or ill-treatment by perpetrators beyond their jurisdiction and control.59
7. Therefore, in accordance with the obligations contained in the principle of non-refoulement,
migrants should not be expelled or returned to another country without an individual,
impartial and independent assessment of the real and personal risk of irreparable harm, by the
administrative and/or judicial authorities. States should design and establish fair and effective
frameworks to comply with their obligation to carry out an individualised assessment and
therefore ensure that all migrants are protected from return to countries in which they face
irreparable harm. Evidence around the world demonstrates that migrants can find themselves
in severe human rights protection gaps along migratory routes and in countries of transit and
destination, not least due to a lack of human rights-based systems of migration governance at
the local, national, regional and global levels.60
8. While reducing the risk of refoulement for certain communities, the CAA unequally places
other communities at such risk. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the CAA, which extends
protection from return only on religious grounds and limited to the specific ethno religious
groups, may not be sufficiently objective and reasonable in light of the broad prohibition of
refoulement under international human rights law.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that in the present case the
provisions of the People's Representation (Amendment) Act and its accompanying rules does not
align with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article XXI of the Constitution of Indiana,
specifically regarding the right to life and personal liberty, in light of the ROKO refugees'
circumstances and experiences.
58
UN Human Rights Committee, communication No. 2470/2014, Hibaq Said Hashi. v. Denmark, Views
adopted on 28 July 2017, CCPR/C/120/D/2470/2014, para. 9.9-9.10
59
UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment, 23 November 2018, A/HRC/37/50, para. 44
60
Human Rights Council, Report on the compendium of principles, good practices and policies on safe, orderly
and regular migration in line with international human rights law, 4 September 2017,A/HRC/36/42, para. 5.

PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
petitioner, respectfully prays before this Honourable Supreme Court to be pleased to –
1. DECLARE that the People‟s Representation (amendment) Act of 2019, in

conjunction with the People‟s Representation (amendment) rules, 2024, violates the
principle of equality enshrined in the constitution of Indiana by discriminating the
refugees on the religious basis.
2. DECLARE that the denial of protection to the Roko refugees under the PR
(Amendment) Act, 2019 and its corresponding rules constitutes a breach of Indiana‟s
international obligations regarding refugee rights and non-discrimination, as per
various treaties and conventions.
3. DECLARE that the provisions of the People's Representation (Amendment) Act,
2019 and its accompanying rules does not align with the fundamental rights
guaranteed under Article XXI of the Constitution of Indiana, specifically regarding
the right to life and personal liberty, in light of the ROKO refugees' circumstances and
experiences.
4. PASS any other order or orders as this Hon‟ble Commission may deem fit in the
circumstances of the case and in the interest of Equity, Justice and Good Conscience.
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER HEREIN SHALL DUTY TO

BOUND FOREVER.
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

TC 01 - Knight (P)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC 01 - Knight (P)

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

TC 01 - Knight (P)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4TH CHRIST ACADEMY INSTITUTE OF LAW – NATIONAL MOOT COURT

4th CHRIST ACADEMY INSTITUTE OF LAW - National Moot

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiana, 1950

Writ Petition No.______ Of 2024

IN THE MATTERS BETWEEN

ORGANISATION FOR THE REFUGEE

UNION OF INDIANA … RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

Sl.No. CONTENTS Pg.No.

01 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS …………………………………….. i

03 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ………………………………... vi

04 STATEMENT OF FACTS …………………………………………... vii

05 ISSUES RAISED ……………………………………………………... viii

07 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ………………………………………... 1

Memorandum for Petitioner i

1. Black's Law Dictionary, 8th edition

Memorandum for Petitioner ii

1. The Citizenship Act, 1955

RULES & REGULATION

Memorandum for Petitioner iii

Memorandum for Petitioner iv

Memorandum for Petitioner v

Article 32 of the Indiana Constitution, 1950

All of which are respectfully submitted

Memorandum for Petitioner vi

The Republic of Indiana emerges as a nation with a rich cultural

In July 2019, massive way of violence in Myania‟s Rini state

1. Absence of specific refugee legislation in Indiana.

In 2021, After the detention and deportation orders of Roko

The amendment was adopted on 12 August 2019 it grants

i.Article XIV ii. Article XXI iii.Article LI – c

All of which are respectfully submitted.

Memorandum for Petitioner vii

Memorandum for Petitioner viii

Memorandum for Petitioner ix

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATION (AMENDMENT) ACT

Memorandum for Petitioner 1

1.1 ARTICLE 14 OUTLAWS DISCRIMINATION IN A GENERAL WAY AND

Memorandum for Petitioner 2

1.2 RELIGION BASED CLASSIFICATION IS AN IMPERMISSIBLE CLASSIFICATION

Memorandum for Petitioner 3

individual. That, intelligible differentia based on religion clearly constitute discrimination

Memorandum for Petitioner 4

Memorandum for Petitioner 5

Memorandum for Petitioner 6

Memorandum for Petitioner 7

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE DENIAL OF PROTECTION TO THE ROKO

2.1 CITIZENSHIP: A UNIVERSAL RIGHT IN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

2.2 THE PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2019 VIOLATES

Memorandum for Petitioner 8

Memorandum for Petitioner 9

Memorandum for Petitioner 10

2.3 THE PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2019 VIOLATES

Memorandum for Petitioner 11

2.4 THE PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2019 VIOLATES

1. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

Memorandum for Petitioner 12

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF THE PEOPLE'S REPRESENTATION