moot memo relating to marital rape, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Law

Download moot memo relating to marital rape and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Law in PDF only on Docsity! COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 1 TEAM CODE: NIU-118 BEFORE THE HON’ BLE HIGH COURT OF FALRES ORGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS W.P. (CIVIL) NO. _____ / 2022 UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ARMINGTON IN THE MATTERS OF BISMILLAH ALLAM & OTHERS……………………………………….Petitioners Vs. UNION OF ARMINGTON & ANR………………………….…..Respondents UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF FALRES MEMEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………4-6 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………..7-9 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………….10 STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………11-12 ISSUES RAISED…………………………………………………………………………..13 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………15&16 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………………16-35 1. WHETHER ARMINGTON CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2019 VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION?  1.1 The impugned Act does not violate Article 14 1.2 the impugned Act does not violate Article 21 1.2.1 That the act doesn’t deprive petitioner’s right to life 1.2.2 That the Parliament followed due procedure 2. WHETHER BISMILLAH ALLAM AND HIS FAMILY IS THE RIGHTFUL CITIZEN OF ARMINGTON OR NOT? 2.1 Parliamentary powers as to termination of citizenship 2.1.1 Article Seven: Rights of Citizenship of Certain Migrants to included 2.2 That settlement of disputes about foreigners is a matter of policy,  2.3 Such policy does not violate a statute or the constitution and  2.4The present matter is beyond the scope of judiciary. 3. WHETHER THE CHARGES AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT? 3.1 Unlike other countries Armington does not have ‘Law of Torts’ 3.2 Protection under Section 76 of Armington Penal Code 2 COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 11. HC HIGH COURT 12. Hon’ble HONORABLE 13. APC ARMINGTON PENAL CODE 14. No. NUMBER 15. Viz. NAMELY 16. Ors. OTHERS 17. ¶ PAGE 18. Pvt. Ltd. PRIVATE LIMITED 19. r/w READ WITH 20. SCC SUPREME COURT CASES 21. SCR SUPREME COURT REPORTER 22. Supp. SUPPLEMENT 23. SC SUPREME COURT 24. Sec SECTION 25. i.e THAT IS 5 COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 26. U/S UNDER SECTION 27. UOI UNION OF INDIA 28. V./Vs. VERSUS 29. w.r.t WITH RESPECT TO INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 6 COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT BOOKS REFERRED 1. 1, D.D. Basu, Shorter Constitution of India (Lexis Nexis: 2018 Edition) 2. 2, D.D. Basu, Shorter Constitution of India (Lexis Nexis, 2018 Edition) 3. D.D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India: Articles 13 and 14(Lexis Nexis: 2014 Edition) 4. 1, H.M Seervai, Constitutional Law of India (4th Edition: 2017) 5. 1, H.M Seervai, Constitutional Law of India (4th Edition: 2017) 6. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (Lexis Nexis: 2018 Edition) 7. P.M. Bakshi, Commentary on the Constitution of India (Lexis Nexis: 2014 Edition) 8. Sanjay S. Singh & Sathya Narayan, Basic Structure Constitutionalism: Revisiting Kesavananda Bharti (Eastern Book Company: 2011 Edition) 9. Article 37, the Constitution of India; Austin Granville, The Indian Constitution: Corner Stone of a Nation, 50 (2 ed., 1967) 10. UN General Assembly, Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951, United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 189, P. 137 STATUTES REFERRED 1. Constitution of India, 1950 2. Foreigner's Act, 1946 3. Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam Act), 1950 4. Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 5. Passport (Entry into Roziana) Rules, 1950 6. Statute of International Court of Justice 7 COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose (2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories (3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without (4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme court by clause ( 2 ) of Article 32”1 STATEMENT OF FACTS The Armington National Register (herein referred to as ANR) which is mandated by the Armington Citizenship Act, 1955 (as amended in 2003) is a register where the names of all the citizens of Armington has to be mandatorily registered. This is done for the purpose of differentiating the Citizens from the illegal immigrants from neighboring countries. The province of Falres shares its borders with another country named Republic of Jamia. The province of Falres has a unique problem of illegal immigration from its neighboring county of Jambia. The ANR for the province of Falres was created in the year 1951 which was based upon the data from the then conducted census of 1951 but thereafter the authorities failed to maintain the said ANR in the province of Falres. Due to the disappointing and unsatisfactory progress in the maintenance of the said register, the Supreme Court of Armington took suo moto cognizance by directing and monitoring the due process since 2013. A recent updated ANR was published for the state of Falres on August 2019 which contained 3.1 crores names 1 Indian Const. Art.226. 10 COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT out of 3.3 crores of population was included in the ANR leaving out 19 lakhs names of people living in the province of Falres. These 19 Lakhs citizens because their names were not mentioned in the ANR faced the danger of losing their citizenship and were thereafter sent to concentration camps set up by the Government of Armington for illegal immigrants and refugees. Meanwhile the present Government of Armington passed the Armingtom Citizenship (Amendment) Bill in the Parliament on December 2019. Under the said amendment bill passed, there were major changes which made a clear mention of 6 primary religions (namely Hindia, Keshabha, Padmabha, Veshabha, Zoarabha, Jehowha) of the country leaving out 1 (Tahibha). Section 2 (1) (b) of the Armington Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 states that – “Provided that any citizen belonging to Hindia, Keshabha, Padmabha, Veshabha, Zoarabha and Jehowha community from Tahibic Republic of Mekimer, Republic of Jambia and Tahibic Republic of Ramingherb who entered into Armington on or before the 31st day of December 2014 and who has been exempted by the Central Government under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Passport (Entry into Armington) Act, 1920 or from the application of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 or any rule or order made thereunder, shall not be treated as illegal migrant for the purposes of this Act”. Further, the Amendment Bill passed also mentions under section 3 that if there is any pendency of proceedings of registering the names of citizens under the ANR on or from the date of commencement of the Amendment Act with respect to illegal migration or citizen, then the citizenship of that particular person shall stand abated on conferment of citizen to him, however, he shall not be disqualified from applying for citizenship under this section on the grounds that the proceeding is pending against him and the authorities shall not reject his application on that ground if he is otherwise found qualified. The Present Government also mandated that all the residents of Falres had to produce documents proving that they or their families lived in the country of Armington before March 24th 1971 due to coming of large number of illegal immigrants by illegally crossing the borders of Armington. Bismillah Alam, grandson of Ekmuddin Alam (brother of the former president of Armington Dara Allam 1975-1977) who also served in the National Armed Forces of Armington for 35 years and is a war veteran, along with four other members of his family (all belonging to the Tahibic community) were arrested on the grounds that their names were not included in the recent updated final list of ANR. They were all sent to the concentration camps set up by the government for the illegal migrants. Bismillah Alam on an interview with a media house stated that they are being purposely sent because they belong to a certain religious 11 COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT community. They further stated that they belong to a prominent and respected family where his relative was the former president of Armington and he himself is a war veteran, only because they could not provide proper documents which verified them as citizens of Armington or prove that his family lived in the present address before 24th March 1971, they were arrested and being sent to concentration camps. Due to which they had faced a lot of humiliation and harassment by the authorities which caused mental trauma. On the other hand, the authorities stated that every person in the province of Falres had to provide their proper documents for the verification of their citizenship irrespective of their social status, religious identities or caste and that the authorities were only abiding by the law. Bismillah Alam via his legal representative filed a writ of Habeas Corpus under article 226 in the High Court of Falres against the Government on the grounds of violation his fundamental right under article 14 and 21. Apart from the charges of violation of Fundamental rights, the Government Authorities were also accused under Wrongful Confinement u/s 343 and Defamation u/s 499 of the Union Penal Code of Armington, hence, the present case. STATEMENT OF ISSUES 1. WHETHER ARMINGTON CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2019 VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION?  2. WHETHER BISMILLAH ALLAM AND HIS FAMILY IS THE RIGHTFUL CITIZEN OF ARMINGTON OR NOT? 3. WHETHER THE CHARGES AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT? 12 COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 4. WHETHER THE ARMINGTON CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2019 VIOLATE THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF BEING A SECULAR OR NOT? It is humbly submitted that the supremacy of the Constitution mandates all constitutional bodies to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Part III of the Constitution contains the Fundamental rights and thus protects substantive as well as procedural rights6. These fundamental rights uphold the dignity of every individual7. It is humbly submitted that any law made by the Parliament must be consistent with the fundamental rights in order to be constitutional8. It is also submitted that the fundamental rights mentioned in Part III are a part of the basic structure of the Constitution of Armington9. Therefore any law that abrogates or abridges such rights would be held as violative of the doctrine of basic structure10. ARGUMENT ADVANCED 1. WHETHER ARMINGTON CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2019 VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION?  It is most humbly submitted that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 is wholly constitutional. The impugned Act does not violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners, namely Article 14, Article 21 and Article 29 and thus stands the test of Article 13. Further, The Parliament is vested with the power to amend laws relating to citizenship under Article 11 of the constitution of Armington, its says that “Parliament to regulate the right of citizenship by law Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part shall derogate from the power of Parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and 6 Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2005) 3 SCC 551 7 Namit Sharma v. UOI, (2013) 1 SCC 745 (800) 8 Article 13(2) of the constitution 9 I.E. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 SCC 1 10 State of West Bengal v. Committee for protection of democratic rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571 15 COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship PART III FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS General”11 It is also contended that there is always an initial presumption of validity of a law 12and that due importance should be given to the legislative intent while deciding the constitutionality of a provision.13 1.1 THAT IMPUGNED ACT DOES NOT VIOLATE ARTIVLE 14 The Citizenships Amendment Act doesn’t intend to harm the minorities of our country. Article 14 guarantees equality to all persons[a], including citizens, corporations, and foreigners. Its provisions have come up for discussion in the Supreme Court in a number of cases and the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Justice S R Tendolkar reiterated its meaning and scope as follows. Article 14 permits classification, so long as it is 'reasonable', but forbids class legislation. A classification of groups of people is considered reasonable when:  The classification is based upon intelligible differentia that distinguishes persons or things that are grouped from others that are left out of the group, and,  The differential has a rational relation with the objective of the act.14 It is humbly submitted that every person is entitled to equality before law and the equal protection of laws15, irrespective of whether he is citizen or non-citizen.16 Laws apply equally to all the persons who are equally circumstanced.17 However, the courts in the number of judgements have held that a classification among persons is permissible only if it is reasonable.18 11 Article, 11 of the constitution 12 G.K. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 375 13 Gita Hariharan v. Reserve bank of India , AIR 1999 SC 1149 14 Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Shri Justice S. R, 1958 AIR 538, 1959 SCR 279 15Faridabad CT. Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services, (1997) 7 SCC 752 16 Natural Resources Allocation, in Re Social Reference No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1 17 Chiranjeet Lal v. UOI, AIR 1951 SC 41 18 T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Kerala, AIR 2003 SC 355 16 COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Moreover, as per the test laid down by this Hon’ble Court under article 14, mere production of inequality is not enough to show that the article 14 has been infringed because every classification produces inequality upto certain extent. Merely because the classification has not been carried out with mathematical precision, is hardly a ground for holding the legislation guilty of Article 14. Also, as long as the extent of over-inclusiveness or under inclusiveness of the classification is marginal, as may be in this case the constitutional vice of infringement of article 14 would not infect the legislation. It’s seen that Article 14 is not violated when there is reasonable classification and over here the 3 counties which are mentioned had declared that they will only follow Islamic law. Due to which people from other religious backgrounds were facing a lot of harassment. We must understand one thing: the refugees from other countries have escaped from their country just because they were humiliated and they have come to us in hope that we would protect them. Due to which Armington took the initiative to protect the minorities of the other country as even they have the Right to life and personal Liberty as stated under Article 21 of our constitution. Moreover, Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 is in consonance with the statutory regime of the act of 1955 and also with the Foreigner act, 1946. CAA does not differentiate on the basis of religion rather the ground for classification is the term “religious persecution”. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the said act does uphold the test of reasonable classification and nexus with the object of the act, and does not violate the spirit of article 14.19 1.2 THAT THE IMPUGNED ACT DOES NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 21 Article 21 lays down that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. This procedure cannot be fanciful and arbitrary, but must answer the test of reasonableness in order to satisfy the requirements of Article 21.20 19 State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75 20 Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, AIR 1978 SC 597 17 COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT do not follow a particular religion we give equal importance to all the religions. There have been no changes made in Section 5 and Section 6, citizenship can be acquired through registration and through neutralisation only the minorities of other countries are given a little privilege. The charges which are made on government stating that they have shown discrimination to the minorities living in our country but there are many other privileges which only for the minorities aren’t those a discrimination towards others? During 1971 the population of Taliban was 9.8% but the current report shows there has been a hike of 14.9% so over here the counsel is trying to tell that there is no law which is made against them it is just for the minorities whose rights being violated in other countries. Over here we must see their intentions which are very clear they are not here to harm our country but they are here to be a party and they are here to get the freedom which was getting violated. With this the council would like to conclude by stating that this Act is not violating Article 14 and Article 21 this is only supporting the minority of other countries to get a citizenship so they can avail rights.  2. WHETHER BISMILLAH ALLAM AND HIS FAMILY IS THE RIGHTFUL CITIZEN OF ARMINGTON OR NOT? According to Article 11 Constitution of Arminfton, 1950, the Parliament has been given absolute powers (subject to PART III) to make provisions regarding acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship. So, the Parliament has the power to frame rules and restriction as to mode of acquiring citizenship provided it is reasonable and fair. (we have already discussed about the reasonability of CAA) 2.1 PARLIAMENTARY POWER (TERMINATION OF CITIZENSHIP): According to Section 9 in the Citizenship Act,199527 the following provisions are provided for the termination of Citizenship 27 Citizenship Act,1995, Sec. 9, Acts of Armington,1995(Armington) 20 COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT  When a citizen of Armington voluntarily acquires the citizenship of another country, then he ceases to be a citizen of Armington.  But a citizen of Armington who voluntarily acquires the citizenship of some other country during the period of war, then his citizenship won’t be ceased till the Central Government directs. In the case of Bhagwati Prasad Dixit v. Rajeev Gandhi28, it was seen that the question raised was against the validity of the election. According to the appellant, the respondent was to be disqualified from being a candidate in the election as he has ceased to be a citizen of India. The respondent had challenged the verdict of the High Court. It was held that the High Court has correctly dismissed the plea because the arguments that were put forward did not disclose any cause of action. Moreover, the question of acquisition of foreign citizenship under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, is to be answered by the Central Government and the High Court does not have the jurisdiction. In the case of, Nasir Ahmed vs The Chief Commissioner, Delhi AIR 1959 P H 26129 It was held that citizenship can be lost by renunciation and by registration of such a declaration (Section 8). It can be terminated if the person concerned voluntarily acquires the citizenship of another country (Section 9) and in the Central Government may in certain circumstances deprive a citizen of his citizenship (Section 10).30 Article 10 empowers the Parliamentary laws to decide whether or not to continue a person’s citizenship. Article 11 of the Citizenship Act holds the Parliament’s right to decide on any provision leading to acceptance or termination of citizenship as absolute.31 Nevertheless, citizenship is considered a fundamental right of all countrymen of the Armington Polity. The State of Bihar v. Kumar Amar Singh (AIR 1955 SC 1614: (1966) 3SCR 70632  Statement of Facts: In this case, a lady went to Karachi in July 1948, leaving her husband in India. She contended that she went to Pakistan for medical purposes, 28 Bhagwati Prasad Dixit ... vs Rajeev Gandhi 1986 AIR 1534, 1986 SCR (2) 823 29 Nasir Ahmed vs The Chief Commissioner, Delhi AIR 1959 P H 261 30 Section 8, 9 &10 of CAA 31 Article 10 &11 of Indian Constitution, 1950. 32 Bihar v. Kumar Amar Singh (AIR 1955 SC 1614: (1966) 3SCR 706 21 COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT which was found baseless. After obtaining a temporary permit wherein it was stated that she was domiciled in Pakistan and was the Pakistan national, she again returned to India in December 1948. On the expiry of that temporary permit, she went back to Pakistan in April 1949. She made an effort to get the permit to settle in Armington permanently, but her efforts failed.  Judgment: It was held that there could be no doubt that the lady must be held to have migrated from the territory of India after 1 March 1947, although her husband has stayed in Armington. Migration in this Article refers to one before 26 January 1950, i.e. between 1 March 1947 and 26 January 1950. And hence, she lost her citizenship. 2.1.1 Article Seven: Rights of Citizenship of Certain Migrants to included33 Regardless of anything in citizenship Articles 5 & 6, a person who has after the 1st day of March 1947, migrated from the Armington territory now encompassing in Pakistan shall not be deemed to be a citizen of Armington: Given that nothing in this article shall apply to a person who after having migrated to the territory now included in Pakistan has returned to the Armington territory under a permit for resettlement or returning permanently issued by the authority of any law and every such person shall for clause (b) of article 6 be deemed to have migrated to the territory of Armington after the 19th day of July 1948. The Counsel would like to make three-fold submission regarding the issue, 1) That settlement of disputes about foreigners is a matter of policy, 2) Such policy does not violate a statute or the constitution and 3) The present matter is beyond the scope of judiciary. 2.2 THAT SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES ABOUT FOREIGNERS IS MATTER OF POLICY: With regards to the first line of contention, in the case of State of Arunachal Pradesh v.Khudiram Chakma, the Supreme Court has held that “The decision regarding settlement of 33 Constitution of Armington,1950/,Art. 7 22 COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT “50. The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.”40 It is for the legislature to identify the class of people to be given protection and on what basis such protection is to be given as held by the Supreme Court in D.C. Bhatia V. Union of India, 1995.41 Petitioners require this Hon’ble Court to violate one of the most fundamental, sacrosanct and basic features of the Constitution, namely the doctrine of separation of powers and that too in matters of policy and international relation of government of Armington. The doctrine of separation of powers is not meant to be a mere transactional construct for division of territory between the various organs, but is meant to preserve the right of the “Republic”, meaning the people, to participate in law and policy-making. In this case, grant of the Petitioners’ prayers would have the effect of keeping the Republic outside the pale of participation in law and policy making on such matters42 of policy and international relation of government of Armington, thereby truncating fundamental rights as well as empowering an unelected body to undertake an exercise which is beyond its constitutional mandate and expertise. The executive or the authorities exercing the functions under CAA can’t go beyond the discretion and powers mentioned under CAA, in accepting the evidence other than the list of documents mentioned. 3. WHETHER THE CHARGES AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT? It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the present petition filed before this bench is not maintainable. The maintainability of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Armington43 depends on the facts of each case.44 The question as to when the Supreme Court should entertain the claim depends on the nature of the fundamental right 40 Article 50 of the Indian Constitution, 1950. 41 D.C. Bhatia V. Union of India, 1995. 42 W.P.(C) 284/2015 & CM Nos.54525-26/2018 43 The Constitution of Armington and Armington Citizenship Act are Pari- Materia with the Constitution ofIndia and Indian Citizenship Act, 1955. 44 Assam Sanmilitia Mahasangh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 1 ; Tilokchand Motichand v.H.B. Munshi, (1969) 1 SCC 110. 25 COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT alleged to have been infringed and the remedy claimed.45 In the present case, the petition is not maintainable because there is no infringement of Fundamental As seen in the previous issues, Since (1) The impugned Act is not violative of Article 14, (2) Not violative of Article 21, (3) Not violative of Article 29, (4) Not violative of Basic Structure, (5) Stands the test of Article 13, (6) And Bismillah Allam and his family fail to prove their proper documents, the government or the executive has the power to carry out the provision given under the CAA law as it is not against Article 14, it does not hit the basic structure and now automatically that law will become a good law, authorizing the executive organ to implement the same and discharge the functions mentioned therein. Even if, it is violative of the Articles mentioned above, such that CAA is held ultravires and invalid under constitution, the executive and authorities who acted under the CAA Act, (carrying out detention and deport in camps) will be saved by Section 76 of APC (acts done by reason of mistake of fact in good faith believes himself to be bound by law) This is because the act done (confinement) is supported by a procedure given by a law, which was valid at the time when the act was committed. CAA and Action taken by the executive authority by virtue of CAA is not violative of Article 21, because they are supported by procedure established by law in CAA. 45 Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, (1969) 1 SCC 110; Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 84. 26 COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Armington does not have Law of Tort and these charges against the govern cannot be maintainable as seen in the case of Faruqui vs Madhya Pradesh Police46, there was very specific question kept in front of th Supreme Court regarding “When will citizens get the right to sue the state for wrongful confinement?” to this, the Supreme Court had said Unlike other countries India does not have ‘Law of Torts’. 4. WHETHER THE ARMINGTON CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2019 VIOLATE THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF BEING A SECULAR OR NOT? It is humbly submitted that the supremacy of the Constitution mandates all constitutional bodies to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Part III of the Constitution contains the Fundamental rights and thus protects substantive as well as procedural rights47. These fundamental rights uphold the dignity of every individual48. It is humbly submitted that any law made by the Parliament must be consistent with the fundamental rights in order to be constitutional49. It is also submitted that the fundamental rights mentioned in Part III are a part of the basic structure of the Constitution of Armington50. Therefore, any law that abrogates or abridges such rights would be held as violative of the doctrine of basic structure51. It is most humbly submitted that Section 2-(1)-(b) of the Armington citizenship Act is wholly constitutional. The impugned act does not violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners, namely Article 14, Article 21, and thereby, it does not satisfy the condition of the rule of the Golden Triangle. Furthermore, it does not violate Article 29 and the said 46 Munnawar S/o Iqbal Faruqui Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 47 Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2005) 3 SCC 551 48 Namit Sharma v. UOI, (2013) 1 SCC 745 (800) 49 Article 13(2) of the constitution 50 I.E. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 SCC 1 51 State of West Bengal v. Committee for protection of democratic rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571 27 COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT exercised only by the Constitution.58 The power to amend provisions of the Citizenship Act is not fettered by Articles 5-10 of the constitution and it is competent for Parliament, in the exercise of this power under Article 11, to take away citizenship already acquired under the earlier article.59 In the present case, the Amendment has granted citizenship to immigrants which is valid through the provision of the constitution. It is submitted that the judiciary does have the power to test the validity of legislative acts60, and this power of judicial review is itself part of the basic structure of the Constitution61. However, this Hon'ble Court has recognised and upheld the legislative wisdom behind an act. In the case of Jalan Trading Co. (P) Ltd. v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha62, The Court held that the legislature may have selected a scheme to achieve certain objectives and unless the enactment fails to satisfy the dual test of intelligible classification and rationality, it will not be subject to judicial interference. And thus, the impugned Act cannot be struck down. 4.3 THE IMPUGNED ACT DOES NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 29 : It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the impugned act does not violate article 29 (1) of the constitution of Armington is an absolute right63 available only to minorities and which grants rights to preserve the ‘language, script or culture’ to any section of citizens residing in the territory of Armington’64. Only minorities possessing a specific language, script or culture which distinguishes them from the other sections of the population are recognised to attract Article 29(1).65 58 GNR Rao v Indira Gandhi, AIR 1971 SC 2002: (1971). 59 Izhar Ahmad v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1052. 60 Waman Rao v. UOI, AIR 1981 SC 271 61 L. Chandra Kumar v. UOI, AIR 1997 SC 1125 62 Jalan Trading co. (P) Ltd. v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha, (1967) 1 SCR 15 63 Sidrejbhai Sabhai v. Syaye of Gujarat, AIR 1963 SC 540 64 DAV College Jalandhar v. State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 1731 65 Art 29, Constitution of India 1950 30 COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT It is also submitted that this Hon'ble Court In Re Kerala Education Bill66 held that a minority means a community which is numerically less than 50 percent of the total population. Following the dicta of this Court, it is humbly submitted that in the vase of Possam the entire population cannot be considered as a ‘minority’ for it is not a specific percentage of the state's population, but is rather the entire population itself. Thus, the natives of Possam are not entitled to any protection under Article 29(1). 4.3.1 There is no obligation on the State to protect the minorities Submitting, but not conceding, that the indigenous people of Armington are entitled to protection under article 29(1), it is submitted that the right is merely protective in nature. It only confers upon such minorities the right to conserve their own culture67 but does not create any such positive obligation on the State to conserve these rights. The State must only make sure that there is no such action which is specifically designed to curtail this right. In the instant case, The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 does not take away or curtail the right of the minorities to conserve their language or practice their culture. Rather, it has been enacted to help and grant citizenship to the minority communities,Hindia, Keshabha, Padmabha, Veshabha, Zoarabha, Jehowha from Tahibic Republic of Mekimer, Republic of Jambia, and Tahibic Republic of Ramingherb who are escaping religious persecution in their own countries. Therefore, The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 cannot be considered violative of Article 29(1). Thus, it is most humbly submitted that, in the instant case, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, which follows Article 14, 21 and 29 of the Constitution of Armington is constitutionally valid and abides by the basic structure of the Constitution. 4.4 CAA PASSES THE TWIN TEST OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION: It is humbly submitted that every person is entitled to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws,68 irrespective of whether he is a citizen or non-citizen.69 Laws apply equally to all persons equally circumstanced.70 However, the Courts in several judgments 66 In Re Kerala Education Bill v. Unknown, AIR 1958 SC 956 67 St. Xavier’s College v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 1389 68 Faridabad CT. scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services, (1997) 7 SCC 752 69 Natural Resources Allocations, In Re Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1. 70 Chiranjeet Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41. 31 COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT have held that a classification among persons is permissible only if it is reasonable.71 For any legislation to be reasonable, it should follow the following two points: 1. It should not be arbitrary, artificial, or evasive. It should be based on an intelligible differentia, some real and substantial distinction, which distinguishes persons or things grouped in the class from others left out of it.72 2. The differentia adopted as the basis of classification must have a rational or reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.73 It is submitted that the legislature would adopt a reasonable classification to achieve some specific ends.74 The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that along with the test of a nexus and intelligible differentia, the policy underlying the statute must also be ascertained.75 The Court may refer to relevant material like objects and reasons appended in the Bill, parliamentary debates, background circumstances leading to the passage of the Act, etcetera.76 Furthermore, various classifications have been upheld as constitutional,77 if there is a reasonable basis underlying the classification.78 It is humbly submitted that if the law in question is based on rational classification, it is not regarded as discriminatory. It is most humbly submitted that the differentia which is the basis of the classification and the Amendment are distinct things and there must be a nexus between them. 79 To attract Article 14, it is necessary to show that the selection or differentiation rests on a rational basis with regards to the object which the Legislature has in view while making the law in 71 T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Kerala, (2002) 8 SCC 481 : AIR 2003 SC 355 72 The State Of West Bengal vs Anwar All Sarkarhabib, 1952 SCR 284. 73 Laxmi Khandsari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1981) 2 SCC 600. 74 Laxmi Khandsari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1981) 2 SCC 600. 75 Kangshari Haldar v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1960 SC 457. 76 Jagdish Pandey v. Chancellor, Bihar University, AIR 1968 SC 353. 77 Swaroop Vegetables Products Industries v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1983) 4 SCC 24. 78 Gopi Chand v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1959 SC 609. 79 In re Special Courts Bill, 1978 v. Unknown, (1979) 1 SCC 380. 32 COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT PRAYER In the light of fact cited issues raised, arguments advanced, and authority cited the respondent humbly submit that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to declare the following: 1. That CAA is violative of Article 14&21; 2. That Bishmillah and his family are not the rightful Citizen of Armington 3. That the petition is not maintainable; 4. That the charges against the government is not maintainable; 5. That the Armington Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 does not violates the basic structure of the Constitution of being a secular structure; 6. That the impugned Act promotes secularism; 7. That the impugned Act passes the twin test of reasonableness. Pass any other order as the hon’ble court deems fit in the interest of equity, justice ,fair play and good conscience. All of which is humbly prayed. 35 COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT (Counsel on behalf of Respondent) 36