Moot Memorial for Petitioners, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Mock Trial and Moot Court

Download Moot Memorial for Petitioners and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Mock Trial and Moot Court in PDF only on Docsity!

TLL-Ansal University's 1st National Online Moot Court Competition 2020 BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA [UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA] WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _ / 2019 & OTHER CONNECTED MATTERS Indican Union Shishlamic League & Ors .……….. (PETITIONER)

v.

Union of Indica & Ors.…………………………………… (RESPONDENTS) SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3) WHETHER OR NOT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF ANY SECTION IS

• LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS _____________________________________
• INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ______________________________________
• STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ________________________________
• STATEMENT OF FACTS ________________________________________
• ARGUMENTS PRESENTED _____________________________________
• SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ___________________________________
• ARGUMENTS ADVANCED _____________________________________
• CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID? __________________________________ 1) WHETHER OR NOT THE CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT IS
• 1.1) Parliament competent to make law ________________________________
• 1.2) CAA is in line with Article 14____________________________________
• 1.3) CAA is in line with Article 21____________________________________
• 1.4) International Conventions_______________________________________
• 1.5) Principles of Secularism & CAA__________________________________
• INCLUDED AS PEAVEFUL PROTEST? __________________________ 2) WHETHER OR NOT THE PROTEST LEADING TO RIOTS COULD BE
• 2.1) Imposition of Reasonable Restriction_____________________________
• 2.2) Current Scenario ____________________________________________
• 2.3) Article 246 & Public Order_____________________________________
• GOVERNMENT FAILED TO FULFIL CONSTITUTIONAL DIRECTIVE ?_ BEING VIOLATED BY THE ACT AND WHETHER OR NOT THE
• 3.1) No violation of Fundamental Rights of any section _______________________
• 3.2) Constitutional Directives_________________________________________
• FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO INDICAN CONSTITUTION ?__________ 4) WHETHER OR NOT THE INTERNET BAN HAS VIOLATED ANY
• 4.1) Right to Speech and Expression& Reasonable Restirctions_________________
• (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules_________________________________ 4.2) Validity of Internet Shutdown under Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services
• 4.3) Internet Shutdown as a measure to maintain public order___________________
• PRAYER ____________________________________________________

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. AIR All India Reporter
2. Hon’ble Honourable
3. App no Application Number
4. art Article
5. cl Clause 6. SC Supreme Court 7. ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 8. UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights 9. & and 10. U.O.I Union of India 11. Ors Others 12. Ltd. Limited 13. i.e. that is 14. CAA Citizenship Amendment Act 15. NRC National Register of Citizens 16. SOA Statement of Objects and Purposes 17. SCC Supreme Court Cases 18. SCR Supreme Court Reporter

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES CITED

Hans Muller of Nuremberg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta, AIR 1955 SC 367

14,16,18,31,

David John Hopkins v. Union of India, AIR 1997 Mad 366 14, State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75 : 1952 SCR 284

R.K. Garg v. Union of India, (1981) 4 SCC 675 15, S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918 (2024) : (1994) 3 SCC 1

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011 19, Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v. Union of India, 1996 5 SCR 241 33 Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 : (1978) 1 SCC 248

22,

Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124 22 State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi, 1952 AIR 329, 1952 SCR 654 22 Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union Of India & Ors 24 Himat Lal K Shah v Commissioner of Police, AIR 1973 SC 87: (1973) 1 SCC 227

Arun Ghosh v State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 1228, 1970 CriLJ 1136, (1970) 1 SCC 98, 1970 3 SCR 288

Haradhan Saha v State of West Bengal,1974 AIR 2154, 1975 SCR (1) 778

State of Uttar Pradesh v Sanjali Pratap Gupta, Appeal (crl.) 1040 of 2004

Virendra v. State of Punjab 1957 AIR 896, 1958 SCR 308 26 Superintendent Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia, AIR 1960 SC 26

633 : (1960) 2 SCR 821

Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab, 1962 AIR 1106, 1962 SCR Supl. (3) 25

M.G. Badappanavar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1973 SC 1461 27 Vishal Properties (p) ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2007) 11 SCC 172 27 LIC of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811.

Radha Mohan Lal v. Rajasthan HC, (2003) 3 SCC 427 : AIR 2003 SC 1467

Chintaman Rao v. State of MP, AIR 1951 SC 118 : 1950 SCR 869 34 Krishnan Kakkanth v. Govt of Kerala, AIR 1997 SC 128 : (1997) 9 SCC 495

Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. v Reserve Bank of India, AIR 1992 SC 1033 : (1992) 2 SCC 343

Gaurav Sureshbhai Vyas v. Union of India, Writ Peition (PIL) No. 191 of 2015

Peoples Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2004), 2 SCC 476 : AIR 2004 SC 1442

V.K Javali v State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC 1387 37 O.K Ghosh v E.X Joseph, AIR 1962 SC 812 37 Om Prakash v. Emperor, AIR 1956 All 241, 1956 CriLJ 452 38 Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of MP, (2009) 7 SCC 751 : AIR 2009 SC 2432

Superintendent Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia, AIR 1960 SC 633 : (1960) 2 SCR 821

Om Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689 38

BOOKS

1. Black Law’s Dictionary
2. M. P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (7th^ Edition. 2014)
3. D D Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, (14th^ Edition. 2009) STATUTES
4. Constitution of India, 1950
5. Indian Penal Code, 1860
6. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1954
7. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
8. Citizenship Act, 1955
9. Foreigners Act, 1946
10. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
11. Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE RESPONDENTS HAVE THE HONOUR TO SUBMIT BEFORE THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA, THE MEMORANDUM FOR THE

RESPONDENTS UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Indica is the largest democracy in the world which has the lengthiest written constitution. The Preamble to the Constitution of Indica declares Indica as a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic. Indican Constitution guarantees to every citizen certain rights and expects its citizens to fufil their duties.
2. Secularism was introduced in the Indican Constitution by the 42nd^ Amendment; this made it a part of “Basic Structure Doctrine” to the Constitution of Indica. This basic structure cannot be amended to remove any word whatsoever. However, additions can be made to them if the situation demands. The preamble was held to be a part of the basic structure vides this case and owing to the fact that Indica is home to multiple religious denominations, the idea of Secularism found its place in the Constitution as part of the 42 nd^ Amendment in 1973.
3. Indica being a secular nation means that it does not does not favour any specific religion, but rather gives equal status and respect to all religions. Sindhuism being the religion that is followed by majority of Indicans, i.e. 79.8%, followed by Shislam (14.23%) and other religions including Chrismanity and Siddhism is 2.3 and 1.72 percent, respectively. It has a neighboring country; Zakistan which opposed to Indica does not have a secular nature.
4. Indica is the second most populous nation in the world. With Indica being surrounded by multiple nations from the Northern frontier it has been reported that the arrival and settlement of many illegal immigrants has been significantly increasing. The influx of the immigrants increased at a larger pace in Nassam. To curb this the Central and State government in collaboration, launched the National Register of Citizens for Nassam, which contained entries of the people being original inhabitants of the state and as the government claims, excluded all the illegal immigrants.
5. Meanwhile, to tackle the issue of illegal immigrants at National Level, the Central Government came up with a bill called Citizenship Amendment Bill. With the aim to

identify the real citizens and provide them with certain exclusive citizenship rights, and reach to a nodal decision w.r.t. the illegal immigrants. A few allegations as to the validity of the bill were raised by the opposition but irrespective of the objection, the bill was passed by both the Houses and converted into a full-fledged Act. The Central Government maintained their stand that the Act was not arbitrary and would not hamper the rights of the citizens of Indica.

6. The citizens while practicing their right to freedom of speech and expression moved to the streets to protest against the same Act but what was alleged to be a peaceful protest turned to be a hostile one which led to a mass bloodshed. The State on various occasions tried to communicate with the citizens by clarifying that the bill does not have any agenda to sweep off the Shislamians as Indica being a secular country gives equal respect to all religions. Even the Home Minister of Indica claimed that Shislamians are in no way the religiously persecuted minorities and nor does the bill has any agenda to sweep them off.
7. The protests involved students from certain universities and political groups like PMI and KNU. In response to the legislation, several sit off protests were organised by the member of Shislamik community. This was morally supported by the opposition members through their statements and visit. One such site for sit off protest was Rahim Bagh where major public inconvenience and disruption of public was taking place. The State tried to curb this hostile crowd but there was continuous denial by the citizens and an explicit incident of making a call through loudspeaker from a local mosque, which called the members of the Shislamik community to continue their fight for justice, invited prompt action by the government.
8. As a measure to maintain public order, the authorities found it necessary to call for an internet shutdown as there was widespread of fake news being shared across social media to generate hate and animosity among the citizens.

ARGUMENTS PRESENTED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER OR NOT THE CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

ISSUE 2: WHETHER OR NOT THE PROTEST LEADING TO RIOTS COULD

BE INCLUDED AS PEACEFUL PROTESTS?

ISSUE 3: WHETHER OR NOT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF ANY

SECTION IS BEING VIOLATED BY THE ACT AND WHETHER OR NOT THE

GOVERNMENT FAILED TO FULFIL CONSTITUTIONAL DIRECTIVES?

ISSUE 4: WHETHER OR NOT THE INTERNET BAN HAS VIOLATED ANY

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS TO INDICAN CONSTITUTION?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: WHETHER OR NOT THE CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

a) It is submitted that the Citizenship Amendment Act does not violate any Fundamental Right of any section and is in conformity with the Basic Structure Doctrine. Therefore, it is constitutionally valid. b) Article 246(1) confers exclusive power to the Parliament to make Laws with respect to the matters enumerated in List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule. Entry number 17 in List I is “Citizenship”. c) The CAA reaffirms Indica’s faith and commitment to secularism by protecting the minorities in non-secular countries within the neighbourhood. It is submitted that limited recognition of religious persecution in limited theocratic countries with a State Religion neither violates the principles of secularism nor falls foul of the arbitrariness clauses. It is submitted that the merely because religion is the starting point of any classification [and not the sole basis of classification], would not imply such classification falls foul of the principles of secularism ISSUE 2: WHETHER OR NOT THE PROTEST LEADING TO RIOTS COULD BE INCLUDED AS PEACEFUL PROTESTS? a) It is contended that protests leading to riots cannot be including as valid protests. Freedom of speech and expression is considered to be one of the basic freedoms in the constitution of Indica. b) The protests which were supposed to be peaceful turned into a full-fledged riot and it led to bloodshed in the country. The protest involved students from the universities and political groups like PMI and KNU who did not support the government in power. The Shislamik community supported these protests and a local mosque made an announcement which encouraged its community members to carry on the protest and fight for their justice.

c) Even if the protestors did take the permission to organize a protest, it was valid only up to the time the protest was peaceful. The minute the protest turned violent, the permission cannot by any logic stay the same. ISSUE 3: WHETHER OR NOT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF ANY SECTION IS BEING VIOLATED BY THE ACT AND WHETHER OR NOT THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO FULFIL CONSTITUTIONAL DIRECTIVES? a) It is contended before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica that the Citizenship Amendment Act does not violate the fundamental rights of any section .It is also submitted that the State has not failed to fulfil any constitutional directive. The said classified communities are persecuted in the particular neighbouring countries as has been acknowledged and recognised by Parliamentary Committees. Classification is based on origin of Countries i.e. the People's Republic of Bangladesh, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Islamic Republic of Zakistan. b) The doctrine of incorporation of international law recognises the position that the rules of international law are incorporated into national law and considered to be part of the national law only if they are not in conflict with an Act of Parliament. ISSUE 4: WHETHER OR NOT THE INTERNET BAN HAS VIOLATED ANY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS TO INDICAN CONSTITUTION? a) It is contended that the internet ban did not violate any Fundamental Rights to Indican Constitution. An internet shutdown results in a prohibition of the total access of internet services which was an essential step to maintain public order as the ideas to turn the protest into a violent one promulgated via sharing broadcast messages through social media platforms and the fake news which were spread across cities turned the citizens hostile. Such a mischief which to be remedied warrants total prohibitions. b) The internet was used as a medium to incite violence and thus there was a proximate relation between restriction of access to the internet and public order. Thus there was no violation of fundamental rights by the internet shutdown.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER OR NOT THE CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT IS

CONSTITUTONALLY VALID?

a) It is most humbly submitted that the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 is constitutionally valid. It does not violate any fundamental right of any person neither it goes against the Basic structure principle. 1.1 PARLIAMENT COMPETENT TO MAKE LAWS b) It is contended that the Parliament is competent to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of Indica by the virtue of Constitutional power conferred upon it. Article 245(1)^1 of the Constitution of Indica empowers the Parliament to do so. c) Article 246(1)^2 confers exclusive power to the Parliament to make Laws with respect to the matters enumerated in List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule. Entry number 17 in List I is “Citizenship”. Also, Article 11^3 of the Indican Constitution empowers the parliament to make laws with respect to the acquisition and termination of Citizenship and all other matters related thereto. Therefore, when Article 246(1) is read with Article 11 of the Constitution, Parliament is legislatively competent to frame citizenship laws for Indica. Hence, CAA is enacted by a competent Legislature. d) Provisions of Part II of the Indican Constitution are not exhaustive but fragmentary and skeletal as they do not deal with the problem of acquisition of citizenship subsequent to that date mentioned.^4 To deal with this, Parliament had enacted the Citizenship Act, 1955. e) The Hon’ble Supreme Court has asserted that the Government has an unrestricted power to expel a foreigner and no foreigner can claim to stay in Indica as a matter (^1) Constitution of Indica, Art. 245, Extent of Laws made by the Parliament and by the Legislature of States. (^2) Constitution of Indica, Art. 246, Subject-matter of Laws made by Parliament and by the Legislature of States. (^3) Constitution of Indica, Art. 11, Parliament to regulate the Right of Citizenship by law. (^4) Jain, M.P. (2014), Indian Constitutional Law, Seventh Edition, Lexis Nexis.

of Right.^5 A foreigner can claim the protection to his life and liberty under Article 21, but the right to reside and settle in Indica as conferred by Art. 19(1) (d) is available only to the citizens and not non-citizens.^6 f) It is submitted that CAA is a means to provide relaxation, to specific communities from certain countries (Zakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan) with a clear cut- off date. This piece of legislation (CAA) aims to tackle the problem of religious persecution which the communities specified under the CAA are subjected to in Zakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. The Parliament has taken into consideration the de facto situation in the said theocratic Nations and acknowledged the class of minorities after which the CAA was enacted. The Parliament heavily relies on the Joint Committee report on Citizenship (amendment) Bill, 2016. g) The Citizenship Amendment Act is not enacted to provide solutions to all kinds of persecution that has taken place or may be taking place around the globe. CAA is narrowly tailored law that seeks to provide answers to a specific problem which required the attention of Indica. h) The Parliament has used the powers vested up on by the Constitution and in its wisdom devised a legislation to tackle the problem of persecution of the particular communities in the specified countries, who have a State Religion mentioned in their respective Constitution (Shislamic Republic). Millions of citizens of undivided Indica belonging to various faiths were staying in the said areas of Pakistan and Bangladesh when Indica was partitioned in 1947 and many such persons have fled to India to seek shelter and continued to stay in India even if their travel documents have expired or they have incomplete or no documents.^7 i) It is also submitted that CAA in no form or manner infringes the rights existing prior to the enactment. The regime that existed prior to the CAA for seeking citizenship remains untouched even after its enactment. The legal migration on the basis of valid documents and visa is still the same and is permissible for all countries across the world. Subject to the fulfillment of Section 5 and 6 of the (^5) Hans Muller of Nuremberg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta, AIR 1955 SC 367 (^6) David John Hopkins v. Union of India, AIR 1997 Mad 366 (^7) Statement of Objects and Reasons, Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019

Citizenship Act, 1955, all persons (regardless of their religion or country of origin) can apply for Indican Citizenship and will be provided the same if eligible as per the law. j) It is therefore, submitted that CAA is a limited legislation which does not affect the existing legal rights concerning the citizenship. It does not introduce religious criteria into the fundamentals of the 1955 Act; rather it uses these criteria merely for the purpose of identifying “minorities” in the three nations specified. This identification falls well within the powers of the Parliament and is the application of their wisdom. 1.2 CAA IS IN LINE WITH ARTICLE 14: a) The Supreme Court has established that Article 14 prohibits the Parliament from enacting laws that arbitrarily or irrationally differentiates between groups of persons. The differentiation to be valid should be founded on “intelligible differentia” and this differentia must have a nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Act.^8 b) In State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar^9 , Bose J. opined that, “The right question to be posed in such cases is whether fair-minded, unbiased reasonable and resolute men regard the classification as reasonable, as just and fair, as the equal treatment expected of a sovereign democratic republic in the conditions which exist in India at the time when it is being tested.” c) The legislature is required to deal with diverse problems arising out of an infinite variety of human relations. It must, therefore, necessarily have the power of making laws to attain particular objects and for that purpose, they should have the power of distinguishing, selecting and classifying persons and things upon which the laws are to operate.^10 It has been also held that matters concerning foreign policy, citizenship, economic policy, wider latitude for classification is available to the Parliament considering the nature of the field which the legislature seeks to (^8) R.K. Garg v. Union of India, (1981) 4 SCC 675 (^9) 1952 AIR 75, 1952 SCR 284 (^10) Jain, M.P. (2014), Indian Constitutional Law, Seventh Edition, Lexis Nexis.

deal with.^11 This means that the legislature is entitled to make reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. d) It is humbly submitted that in matter concerning immigration policy and citizenship in particular, it is the executive policy of the sovereign manifested by competent legislation , which would govern the decision. Exclusion of immigrants is an incident of sovereign belonging and immigration policy. This by extension affects the security of the State and hence falls squarely within the Parliamentary domain. e) It is humbly submitted that the classification made by the legislature in the present case fulfils the above said requirement. f) The first tier of classification is the identification of six communities i.e. Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis and Christians. The said classification is grounded on an intelligible differentia of the said minorities as persecuted communities on the basis of a separate religion practiced by the said communities than the one recognised by the Constitutions of such countries as State religion. The said classified communities are persecuted in the particular neighbouring countries as has been acknowledged and recognised by Parliamentary Committees.^12 g) Conferment of citizenship being a sovereign function allows the Parliament to decide and identify “minorities” in the specified States and the Parliament is not required to take into consideration which communities are treated as minorities in those States. h) Second tier of classification is based on origin of Countries i.e. the People's Republic of Bangladesh, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Islamic Republic of Zakistan. The history clearly depicts that persecuted minorities in the said three countries were left without any rights and the said historical injustice is sought to be remedied by the amendment without taking away or whittling down the right of any other person. The three nations are theocratic States and this has led to religious persecution of the named communities.^13 (^11) Hans Muller of Nuremberg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta, AIR 1955 SC 367 (^12) Report of the JOINT COMMITTEE on the CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2016, Lok Sabha (^13) Report of the JOINT COMMITTEE on the CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2016, Lok Sabha, Page no.: 38

i) The Joint Parliamentary Committee has laid down the atrocities faced by these minorities in Zakistan.^14 In Afghanistan the minority including Hindu, Sikh, Christians make up to 0.3% of their population and in 2018, 500 to 600 Sikhs and Hindus, representing almost half their numbers, fled to either Indica or Western countries during the year, particularly in the aftermath of the July 1 bombing in Jalalabad.^15 The Hindu population in Bangladesh did fall from around 23% in 1951 to around 8% in 2011.^16 The specified communities from the particular neighbouring countries appear to be most closely connected with Indican nationality considering the closely connected history of such communities within the territorial/geographical landmass of Indica. j) Indica is a constitutionally secular country^17 and further has a large population of persons belonging to the classified communities already residing as Indican citizens. It is therefore submitted that the said classification is logically complete and made as a legislative policy strictly in light of prevailing geo-political and other allied reasons which would not be justiciable. In totality of the above mentioned factors, it is submitted that the classification made is just, fair and reasonable and has a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act. k) It is respectfully submitted that merely because the classification has not been carried out with mathematical precision, or that there are some categories distributed across the dividing line, is hardly a ground for holding that the legislation falls foul of Article 14, as long as there is broad discernible classification based on intelligible differentia, which advances the object of the legislation, even if it be class legislation. It is respectfully submitted that as long as the extent of over-inclusiveness or under-inclusiveness of the classification is marginal, as may be in the present case, the constitutional vice of infringement of Article 14 would not infect the legislation. (^14) Report of the JOINT COMMITTEE on the CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2016, Lok Sabha, page no.: 22 (^15) Report on International Religious Freedom Report for 2018 United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (^16) Citizenship Amendment Bill: Are India's claims about minorities in other countries true? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia- (^17) S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918 (2024) : (1994) 3 SCC 1

1.3. CAA IS IN LINE WITH ARTICLE 21

a) It is submitted that the expanse of Article 21 is extremely wide in Indica. It has further been held that foreigners, especially illegal immigrants, would not be entitled to place a challenge to the provisions of the said Act and that the procedure under the Foreigners Act has been consistently held by this Hon’ble Court, to be just fair and reasonable^18. b) A foreigner can claim the protection to his life and liberty under Article 21, but the right to reside and settle in Indica as conferred by Art. 19(1) (d) is available only to the citizens and not non-citizens.^19 c) It is submitted that the CAA does not result in expulsion/deportation/refoulement of any person who may be classified as “illegal migrant”. It is submitted that the CAA is merely a classification for relaxations in qualifications of otherwise settled principles of citizenship. It is submitted that regime concerning the expulsion/deportation/refoulement of person who may be classified as “illegal migrants‟ is governed by other statutes which are not under challenge in the present petitions. d) The legal provisions regarding the National Register of Citizens i.e. Section 14A^20 of the 1955 Act have been part of said 1955 Act since December, 2004. It is submitted that said provisions consist merely of the procedure and the authority concerned for the preparation of a national register of citizens. The preparation of (^18) Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta & ors, AIR 1955 SCC 367 (^19) David John Hopkins v. Union of India, AIR 1997 Mad 366 (^20) Citizenship Amendment Act, 2003, Section 14A: Issue of National cards- 1) The Central Government may compulsorily register every citizen of India and issue national identity card to him.

2. The Central Government may maintain a National Register of Indian Citizens and for that purpose establish a National Registration Authority.
3. On and from the date of commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003, the Registrar General, India, appointed under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (18 of 1969) shall act as the National Registration Authority and he shall function as the Registrar General of Citizen Registration.
4. The Central Government may appoint such other officers and staff as may be required to assist the Registrar General of Citizen Registration in discharging his functions and responsibilities.
5. The procedure to be followed in compulsory registration of the citizens of India shall be such as may be prescribed.

a national register of citizens is a necessary exercise for any sovereign country for mere identification of citizens from non-citizens. It is submitted that as per the existing statutory regime, there are three classes of persons residing in Indica – Citizens, Illegal migrants and foreigners on valid visas. It is therefore, the responsibility entrusted on the Central Government, on a combined reading of the Foreigners Act, The Passport (Entry into Indica) Act, 1920 and the 1955 Act to identify/detect illegal migrants and thereafter, follow the due process of law. Therefore, Article 21 is not violated. e) The identification of illegal migrants in the country, as a principle of governance, is a sovereign, statutory and moral responsibility of the government (as mentioned in the above argument) and is in conformity with Article 21. 1.4. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS a) It is submitted that the treaties and conventions cannot become a standard for judicial review of legislation made by competent legislature in Indica. Reliance on International Law cannot be placed when the specific field is occupied by domestic parliamentary law^21. b) The treaty making power of any sovereign government is always subject to whatever constitutional restrictions that may be determinable by the text or the structure of the Constitution. Therefore, it is submitted that the treaty-making power is exercised in the manner contemplated by the Constitution and subject to the limitations imposed by it. c) Therefore, the doctrine of incorporation of international law recognises the position that the rules of international law are incorporated into national law and considered to be part of the national law only if they are not in conflict with an Act of Parliament. d) In regards to the International Conventions, It is submitted that the subjects like foreign affairs, all matters which bring the Union into relations with any foreign (^21) Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011 and Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v. Union of India, 1996 5 SCR 241

country, diplomatic relations, citizenship, extradition, admission into and emigration and expulsion from Indica etc. form part of the Union List [List I] contained in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution read with Article 246 of the Constitution. It is thus, within the domain of Parliament to make laws and for the Central Government to take executive / administrative decisions with regard to the said subjects. 1.5. PRINCIPLE OF SECULARISM & CAA a) It is submitted that CAA does not exempt just the shislamic community from its benefit but also other communities like Tibetan Siddhist from China or Tamil Hindus from Sri Lanka. Therefore, CAA is not attempt to classify just the “Shislamic Community” as illegal migrants. It is further submitted that the recognition of religious persecution in the particular neighbouring states, which have a specific state religion and long history of religious persecution of minorities, is actually a reinstatement of Indican ideals of secularism, equality and fraternity^22. b) Section 6 read with the Third Schedule or Section 5 of the 1955 Act allows any person to become an Indican Citizen. Therefore, it cannot be said that the right to apply for Indican citizenship is only provided to the specific community from specified country. It is unequivocally submitted that the CAA has, in no manner whatsoever, made religion a basis of determining citizenship of a person. c) It is submitted that the CAA reaffirms Indica’s faith and commitment to secularism by protecting the minorities in non-secular countries within the neighbourhood. It is submitted that limited recognition of religious persecution in limited theocratic countries with a State Religion neither violates the principles of secularism nor falls foul of the arbitrariness clauses. It is submitted that the merely because religion is the starting point of any classification [and not the sole basis of classification], would not imply such classification falls foul of the principles of secularism. It is submitted that the Indican secularism is not irreligious rather it takes cognizance of all religions and promote comity and (^22) Constitution of Indica, Preamble.

brotherhood between all. It is further submitted that across subjects, the Indican Parliament and State Legislature, have made classifications on the basis of religious identities of Indican citizens as a starting point. d) The CAA is in the nature of a measure, thereby recognising the religious persecution systematically faced by the classified communities in the particular neighbouring countries is a representation of the Indica’s legislative policy with regard to relaxation of qualifications of citizenship. The measure under CAA is only for prescribing qualifications of citizenship and do not grant citizenship to the specific community. e) It is submitted that rather than breaching any principle of “freedom of religion” the CAA seeks to protect the “freedom of religion” of the classified communities who have been persecuted for exactly expressing and practicing their respective religions in the particular neighbouring countries. f) It is therefore, submitted that in light of the submissions made herein above, the CAA does not violate any fundamental right provisions of the constitution and therefore, the question of violation of constitutional morality does not arise. It is submitted that constitutional morality is not an unruly horse and cannot become an independent basis for challenging the constitutionality of validly enacted legislation. ISSUE 2: WHETHER OR NOT THE PROTEST LEADING TO RIOTS COULD BE INCLUDED AS PEACEFUL PROTESTS?

2.1. IMPOSITION OF REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS

a) It is contended that protests leading to riots cannot be included as valid protests. Freedom of speech and expression is considered to be one of the basic freedoms in the constitution of Indica. Every citizen must be entitled to participate in the democratic process in order to enable him to intelligently exercise his rights of making a choice.^23 Freedom of speech and expression is the basis and essence of the constitution as held in the case of Romesh Thappar v Union of Indica.^24 In Indica, this right is protected by Article 19(1) (a). However, no right in the constitution can go unchecked and hence Article 19(2) allows for reasonable restrictions to be imposed on all fundamental rights including that of freedom of speech and expression. Although Article 19 (1)(a) and (b) talks about freedom of speech and expression and freedom to assemble peacefully respectfully. Such rights need to have certain restrictions placed on them for the maintenance of decorum.^25 b) Accordingly, the Constitution of Indica places restrictions on these freedoms through Article 19(2). The state can make a law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right of freedom of speech and expression in the interest of the public. Although it is important to preserve the freedom of speech and expression, it is also important to curb these freedoms when they go out of hand and tend to destroy the peace and sanctity in the country. Disorderly riots that are started in the name of peaceful assembly cannot be protected under Article 19(1) (b). Article 19(2) allows the state to make laws that restrict freedom of speech so long as they impose reasonable restrictions in the "interests of the sovereignty and integrity of Indica, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order as added through the amendment, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.^26 (^23) Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 : (1978) 1 SCC 248 (^24) AIR 1950 SC 124 (^25) Right to Peaceful Assembly, Law Times Journal, (Aug. 27, 2017) http://lawtimesjournal.in/right- peaceful-assembly/ (^26) State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi, 1952 AIR 329, 1952 SCR 654

c) The constitutional right to assembly is subject to certain regulations contained in a number of laws, such as the Indian Penal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, and the Police Act of 1861. These laws help the government to impose certain “reasonable restrictions” on the right to assemble, if such assembly is likely to lead to a disturbance in public peace and order. With this, the Constitution seeks a balance between the freedom of speech guaranteed in Article 19 (1) (b) and social order as defined in Article 19 (2). No law can go unchecked. While freedom of speech and expression is a basic right in the constitution, it is also important to put at par the safety of the state. The interests of an individual or few individuals cannot and must not be put above the benefit and safety of an entire country. However precious the freedom of speech and expression is, it can never override the importance of security of the state. It is important for every person to have a free political view but the opportunity to speak freely can most certainly not be provided without the existence of an organized government. Hence, no interference with the security of the organized government can be considered lawful or constitutional. 27 2.2. CURRENT SCENARIO a) In the current case, the protests which were supposed to be peaceful turned into a full-fledged riot and it led to bloodshed in the country^28. The protest involved students from the universities and political groups like PMI and KNU who did not support the government in power^29. The Shislamik community supported these protests and a local mosque made an announcement which encouraged its community members to carry on the protest and fight for their justice^30. As rightly said by one of the leaders of the government in power, these CAA protests were being turned into communal riots which have been supported by the opposition party who have taken the maximum advantage of this situation by provoking people to protest unnecessarily. The leaders of the opposition (^27) Guruswamy, Menaka, Freedom to Assemble and the Freedom of Association (February 6, 2015). https://ssrn.com/abstract=2574555 (^28) Para 9, Moot Proposition (^29) Para 11, Moot Proposition (^30) Para 12, Moot Proposition

government gave provocative speeches and asked the minorities to pick sides without truly understanding that we as a country are on the same side. These protests were in no way peaceful. People broke portions of boundary walls to use stones for pelting. A supporter of the anti-CAA protest was dragged and beaten up close to a barricade before he was rescued by police In the case of Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union Of India & Ors^31 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had stated, “Citizens have a fundamental right to assembly and peaceful protest which cannot be taken away by an arbitrary executive or legislative action.” Every person is entitled to participate in a democratic process. Everyone has the right to think and express. However, none of this should cause any harm, like it did in the current scenario. Even though leaders came forth to explain that this act was introduced as a means to provide citizenship, not snatch it, students of PMI and KNU didn’t stop. They were the face of almost all protests and tried to remove all their pent up frustration against the government. Any and every protest is legal only if it does not harm and destroy public property. A protest must be carried out in a non-violent way. It must not involve harm to any public property or to human life. As per Entry 1 in state list in Schedule 7, the subject of public order falls within the responsibilities of the state. Hence, only a state is at the liberty to grant permission to organize a peaceful protest. Few steps have to be followed to take permission from the police to organize a protest. Even if the protestors did take the permission to organize a protest, it was valid only up to the time the protest was peaceful. The minute the protest turned violent, the permission cannot by any logic stay the same. b) Sections 141 to 190 of the Indian Penal Code allows for punitive action against those who participate in any unlawful assembly. If the police believe that the protestors are indulging in unlawful activities like starting riots which is the situation in this case, they have the right to stop it. Certain events of unrest just like this one are extremely communal in nature. In this case, as earlier mentioned the local mosque encouraged its community members to fight for its justice by (^31) SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 122 OF 2011

making announcements. Such things can cause a strain on the secular character of the country. The opposition party was also providing support to the protestors and indirectly fulfilling their motive of bringing the opposition government down. c) The exercise of any freedom must come to an end as soon as the right of someone else to hold his property intervenes. Such a limitation is inherent in the exercise of those rights. In the current case, the protests had led to road blockages and had made the lives of the civilians very chaotic. d) If the police feel that there is a certain level of threat from a said protest then it falls under their powers to deny the permission for the same. The court has held that it is incorrect for the commissioner to give or to refuse the permission to organize a protest without giving reasons in any place that comes under the definition of the word “street”. Different states have different legislation that has to be followed.^32 The Joint Commissioner of Police made a statement saying that stones were pelted at them by these protestors when the police tried to intervene and calm the situation. Various women had come out on the streets and had even blocked a station connecting two important stations. This was a major inconvenience for all the civilians who were trying to get about their daily routine. e) Under Section 30, Police act, 1861, the police have the power to issue licenses which prescribe and define the conditions on which assemblies are to take place so as to make sure that there is no disturbance or hindrance in public peace and policy. The police also have the right to end a protest if it goes against the very conditions that have been prescribed in the license Section 123 CrPC gives the police officer the right to disperse any assembly that is likely to cause a disturbance to public peace. 33 f) The police have the duty to control and regulate crowds while providing citizens the space and peace to exercise their right to assembly. However, there are times when the protest takes a violent turn, either among the protesters or between them and the police. The risk of a protest turning violent has increased in recent times. Due to social media and word of mouth, something happening in one part of the (^32) Himat Lal K Shah v Commissioner of Police, AIR 1973 SC 87: (1973) 1 SCC 227 (^33) Legality of Shaheen Bagh Protests, (Feb. 24, 2020), https://lawstreet.co/speak-legal/legality-of-shaheen- bagh-protests/