Submitted by: Vrinda Harmilapi (21010630)

21jgls-vrinda@jgu.edu.in
Yashi Teotia (21010674)
21jgls-yteotia@jgu.edu.in
LLB 2021-2024, Section A, Petitioners (G3)

MOOT COURT AND TRIAL ADVOCACY 2024

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 321 OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: -

M.C. & T.A.

…Petitioner
Versus

Union of India
…Respondent

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENT

Content Page No.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3
LIST OF AUTHORITIES 4-5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6
STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS 6-7
ISSUES RAISED 7
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS 7-8
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 8-12

1
 PRAYER 12

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

S. No. Word Abbreviation

1. Article Art.
2. Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 CAA
3. International Covenant on Civil and Political ICCPR
Rights
4. International Convention on the Elimination of ICERD
All Forms of Racial Discrimination
5. International Human Rights IHR
6. Constitution of India IC
7. Universal Declaration of Human Rights UDHR
8. Union of India UOI
9. Under u/
10. Versus v.

2
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases
1. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India AIR 2018 SC 4321
2. Sharma Transport v. Government of AP (2002) 2 SCC 188
3. Maneka Gandhi V. The Union of India 1978 AIR 597
4. R.K. Garg v. Union of India (1981) AIR 1981 SC 2138
5. Shayara Bano v. Union of India AIR 2017 SC 4609
6. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India 1994 AIR 1918
7. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1982)3SCC24

Statutes
Article 32 of the Constitution of India-
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 warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this
Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
for by this Constitution.”
Article 14 of the Constitution of India –
Equality before law.

3
“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the
laws within the territory of India.”

Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights-

“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.”

Research Papers
 Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 And International Law by Professor Michelle Foster
and Dr Adil Hasan Khan
 India’s Citizenship Amendment Act Violates International Human Rights by Talia Lewis
 Indian polity by Lakshmikant

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The petitioners, M.C. & T.A., humbly approach this Hon’ble Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, seeking redressal of individuals’ fundamental rights and constitutional
grievances stemming from the enactment of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA).
This Court, vested with original jurisdiction under Article 32, serves as the guardian of
fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. The present petition poses
substantial questions of law regarding the validity of the CAA, particularly in light of its
4
potential infringement upon the right to equality as vested in Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution and India’s international human rights obligations under Article 26 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In this pursuit of justice, the
petition earnestly implores the Court’s intervention to safeguard these fundamental rights and
uphold India’s solemn commitments to international human rights standards.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, enacted on December 12, 2019, introduces
amendments to the Citizenship Act of 1955. It aims to provide expedited Indian citizenship to
religious minorities (Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians) from
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan who entered India before December 31, 2014, notably
excluding Muslims from its purview.1 The 2019 amendment to the act eased the citizenship
requirement for naturalization, reducing it from twelve years to just six. 2 The CAA aims to
protect individuals who have faced religious persecution in their countries of origin, granting
them accelerated citizenship and shielding them from illegal migration proceedings.3
However, the CAA, despite its purported intentions, has ignited widespread controversy due
to its discriminatory provisions. The Act creates arbitrary classifications based on religion
and country of origin, straying from the inclusive ethos of India’s constitutional framework.
Such selective grant of citizenship infringes upon the fundamental right to equality enshrined
in Article 14 of the Constitution. Moreover, the Act’s exclusionary nature undermines India’s
International Human Rights commitments, including those outlined in Article 15(1) of the
UDHR and Article 5(d)(iii) of the ICERD, as well as Article 26 of the ICCPR, which
prohibits discrimination based on religion. 4 The repercussions of the CAA extend beyond
legal frameworks, permeating societal fabric and exacerbating divisions while stigmatizing
marginalized communities.5 This petition underscores the inefficacy of discriminatory
legislation in addressing societal concerns and advocates for a rational, inclusive approach.
By challenging the constitutionality of the CAA, this Petition seeks to uphold the principles
of equality, secularism, and non-discrimination- integral to India’s identity. Embracing a
more compassionate and inclusive legal framework not only aligns with constitutional values

1
Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019, No. 47 Acts of Parliament, 2019 (India)
2
Ibid
3
Ibid
4
Lewis, Talia [2021] ‘India’s Citizenship Amendment Act Violates International Human Rights’, 28
5
Ibid
5
but also fosters social cohesion and respect for human rights, essential for the flourishing of a
democratic society.
Hence, this present Petition Civil.

ISSUES RAISED
1. Whether the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 violates right to equality guaranteed
under Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
2. Whether the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 violates India’s international human
rights obligations, including its commitment under Article 26 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)?

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
Issue 1: Violative of Art. 14 of the IC
The CAA creates discriminatory classifications based on religion and country of origin,
thereby infringing upon the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution. By differentiating on religious grounds and granting preferential treatment to
specific communities such as Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, Jains, and Parsis, while
excluding others like Muslims, the CAA establishes an arbitrary and unreasonable
differentiation. This approach contradicts the fundamental principles of equality before the
law. Additionally, the Act singles out Muslim migrants from neighboring countries for
exclusion, creating an arbitrary classification based solely on religion. Article 14 prohibits
such classifications unless they have a reasonable basis 6 and serve a legitimate purpose7.
Furthermore, the CAA foregrounds religious identity as a criterion for granting citizenship,
diverging from the liberal idea of citizenship and secularism envisioned by the Indian
Constitution.

Issue 2: Violation of India’s IHR Obligation u/Art. 26 ICCPR

Article 26 ICCPR prohibits discrimination on various grounds, including religion. The CAA,
however, blatantly undermines this principle by privileging individuals from specific
religious communities while disregarding others. This discriminatory stance runs counter to
the fundamental tenets of non-discrimination and equality before the law, which are
cornerstones of IHR law.8 Moreover, the Act’s exclusionary nature not only violates India’s
commitment to upholding universal human rights standards but also tarnishes its reputation as
6
R.K. Garg v UOI [1981] AIR 1981 SC 2138
7
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar [1952] AIR 75 SC
8
Supra note 4.
6
a democratic and pluralistic society.9 By excluding Muslims from its benefits, even in cases
where they face religious persecution, the CAA perpetrates discrimination based on religion.
Notably, Article 26 extends beyond the specific rights delineated in the ICCPR,
encompassing broader principles of equality and non-discrimination. 10 While certain rights,
such as the right to nationality, may not be explicitly mentioned in the ICCPR, Article 26 still
prohibits discriminatory practices in nationality laws. 11 The Human Rights Committee further
clarifies that the principles of equality and non-discrimination also extend to the
naturalization process.12 Therefore, the discriminatory provisions of the CAA stand in stark
contradiction to the principles enshrined in Article 26 of the ICCPR and undermine the very
essence of universal human rights.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
Issue 1: Right to equality u/Art 14 IC
The principle of equality, integral to the Indian Constitution, mandates equal treatment under
the law and equal protection by the law. The CAA, by introducing classifications based on
religion and country of origin, conflicts with Article 14’s essence of non-discrimination.
The Article provides a ‘twin test’ of reasonable classification. 13 It necessitates a clear basis
for differentiation (‘intelligible differentia’) and a direct link (‘nexus’) between this
differentiation and objective sought to be achieved by the legislation.14
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India 15 underscores that
‘intrinsic and core traits’ (like religion) cannot form the basis for such classification,
especially when the CAA’s objective—to aid religiously persecuted minorities—overlooks
groups like Ahmadiyyas in Pakistan and Shias and Hazaras in Afghanistan, who also face
persecution. This makes the classification unreasonable.
Furthermore, by creating distinctions based on religion and granting favourable status to
select communities such as Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, Jains, and Parsis, while
notably excluding Muslims, the CAA introduces a discriminatory and arbitrary division. This
approach contravenes the foundational tenets of equality before the law. The Act establishes
an arbitrary classification solely on religious grounds. In the landmark case of Sharma

9
Ibid
10
Narender Nagarwal, ‘Global Implications of India’s Citizenship Amendment Act 2019’ [2020] RIAC
11
Ibid
12
Ibid
13
Supra note 7.
14
Supreme Court Observer, ‘Indian Union Muslim League Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) Writ Petition’,
https://www.scobserver.in/reports/indian-union-muslim-league-citizenship-amendment-act-caa-writ-petition-
summary-indian-union-muslim-league/ accessed 2 April 2024.
15
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India [2018] AIR 2018 SC 4321
7
Transport v. Government of AP16, the Court emphasized the necessity of having a principled
basis behind governmental decisions to avoid arbitrariness under Article 14. The petitioner
contends that the CAA selection of countries lacks such a principle, rendering it arbitrary.
Despite the presence of persecuted minorities like Eelam Tamils in Sri Lanka, and Rohingya
Muslims in Myanmar, and the existence of a state religion in Sri Lanka, the CAA’s
classification fails to account for these factors.17 As a result, the petitioner asserts that the
Act’s singling out of Muslims establishes an arbitrary religious classification, further
highlighting its manifestly arbitrary nature.
It is further submitted that the Act’s disregard for secularism—a cornerstone of the Indian
Constitution that mandates impartiality from the state towards all religions—compromises the
secular fabric enshrined in the Preamble, which characterizes India as a “sovereign, socialist,
secular, democratic, republic.”18 Article 14 is one of the Articles in the Indian Constitution
that elaborates on the concept of Secularism. The preferential treatment of specific religious
communities over others in citizenship matters undermines the core principle of non-
discrimination ingrained in India’s secular ethos. Article 14 explicitly prohibits such
discriminatory classifications unless they are based on a rational foundation and effectively
serve their intended purpose—criteria that the Citizenship Amendment Act fails to meet, as
previously elaborated.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly maintained the above-mentioned values in its decisions. In
Maneka Gandhi Vs. The Union of India19 has confirmed the principle of reasonableness in
Article 14, which cancels the arbitrariness of the state and ensures justice and equal
treatment. It confirmed the same principle in R.K. Garg v UOI (1981)20, where the court held
that Article 14 prohibits classifications based on arbitrariness or unreasonableness. In the case
of Shayara Bano Vs. Union of India21 the court stated that an act found to be arbitrary and
unreasonable loses the protection afforded by Article 14 and may be annulled on that basis.
S.R. Bommai v UoI22 the court emphasized the state’s obligation to safeguard the rights of
minority groups and prevent discrimination against them. These landmark judgments
underscore the judiciary's commitment to ensuring fairness, equality, and protection of
fundamental rights in the Indian legal system.

16
Sharma Transport v. Government of AP [2002] 2 SCC 188
17
Supra note 14.
18
India Const. pmbl.
19
Maneka Gandhi Vs. The Union of India [1978] AIR 59
20
Supra note 6.
21
Shayara Bano Vs. Union of India [2017] AIR 2017 SC 4609
22
S.R. Bommai v Union of India [1994] AIR 1918
8
In the landmark case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab23, the Supreme Court emphasized
the imperative to evaluate the “direct and inevitable consequence” of legislative statutes. This
principle assumes heightened relevance in the context of the National Register of Citizens
(NRC) process. The petitioner underscores a critical concern: under the CAA, Hindu
migrants stand to gain legal protection, while Muslim migrants face potential
disenfranchisement. The burden of proving citizenship falls disproportionately on Muslims. 24
This discriminatory impact underscores the urgent need for judicial scrutiny to safeguard the
constitutional principles of equality and justice.
Henceforth, it is submitted that the CAA’s incompatibility with the principles of secularism
and equality before the law, as enshrined in Article 14, underscores its unconstitutional
nature. It not only contravenes India’s foundational ethos but also raises significant concerns
regarding the arbitrariness and discrimination embedded within its provisions.

Issue 2: International Human Rights Obligation u/Art 26 ICCPR

It is submitted that the CAA stands in stark contrast to India’s obligations under the ICCPR,
which the country ratified in 1979. Article 26 of the ICCPR champions the principle of
equality, mandating that every individual receives equal legal protection without facing
discrimination on grounds such as religion, race, sex, language, or any other status. However,
by specifically omitting Muslims from its scope, the CAA has indulged itself in religious and
origin-based discrimination. This aspect of the CAA has drawn criticism from global entities
like Amnesty International25 and the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights 26,
which have highlighted the Act’s deviation from the principles of equality and non-
discrimination, branding it as “inherently discriminatory”27.
Such criticisms threaten to tarnish India’s global reputation, with Amnesty International
pointing out that the implementation of the CAA negatively reflects on India’s regard for the
concerns raised by both the international community, United Nations and its own civil

23
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [1982] 3 SCC 24
24
Supra note 14.
25
Amnesty International, ‘India: Citizenship Amendment Act is a blow to Indian constitutional values and
international standards’, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/03/india-citizenship-amendment-act-is-a-
blow-to-indian-constitutional-values-and-international-standards/#:~:text=The%20operationalization%20of
%20the%20Citizenship,obligations%2C%20said%20Amnesty%20International%20today accessed April 2,
2024.
26
Human Rights Watch, India Activates Discriminatory Citizenship Law,
https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/03/15/india-activates-discriminatory-citizenship-law#:~:text=The%20United
%20Nations%20high%20commissioner%20for%20human,enforcing%20a%20law%20that%20fosters
%20religious%20discrimination accessed April 4, 2024.
27
Congressional Research Service, Changes to India’s Citizenship Laws,
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11395 accessed April 5, 2024
9
society.28 Countries including the United States and Germany have voiced their disapproval,
emphasizing that “Respect for religious freedom and equal treatment under the law for all
communities are fundamental democratic principles.”29
The CAA’s exclusion of Muslims could potentially harm India’s diplomatic relations with
Muslim-majority nations, particularly those with which India has significant historical,
economical or cultural connections, such as the UAE and Indonesia. Moreover, the Act
neglects Muslim minorities facing persecution, such as the Rohingyas from Myanmar and
Afghan refugees fleeing the Taliban, who are denied expedited citizenship solely on the basis
of their religion. This creates a disparity in treatment; for example, a Hindu fleeing the
Taliban in Afghanistan is treated differently from a Muslim in the same situation.
Furthermore, the Act overlooks the diversity within the Muslim community itself, such as the
differing experiences of persecution faced by Shia and Ahmadiyya Muslims in the mentioned
countries. This selective exclusion raises concerns about the consistency of India’s stance on
protecting persecuted minorities. Furthermore, as emphasized in the petition, the exclusion of
numerous marginalized groups in the South Asian region, such as Bhutanese refugees,
Hazaras, Rohingya Muslims, and others, by India, undermines the very principles of
humanitarianism that the nation has long championed.30

PRAYER
For the reasons stated above, it is the most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to:
1. Declare the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, wholly or partially, unconstitutional
and void for violating the right to equality enshrined under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
2. Declare the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, incompatible with India's
obligations under Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) and uphold the principles of justice, fairness, and constitutional
morality by striking down the provisions of the CAA that discriminate based on
religion.

28
Supra note 25.
29
U.S. Department of State, Department Press Briefing – April 3, 2024, MATTHEW MILLER,
DEPARTMENT SPOKESPERSON WASHINGTON, D.C, https://www.state.gov/?post_type=state_briefing&
%3Bp=92333#post-549679-India2 accessed April 6, 2024.
30
Supra note 25.
10
 3. Issue an appropriate writ, including but not limited to a writ of mandamus or
certiorari, directing the Respondent (Union of India) to repeal the Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 2019 and the Citizenship Amendment rules 2024.
4. Issue such other orders, or directions as this Court may deem fit in the
interest of justice.

May it please the Court, the present case concerns the alleged violation of Article 26 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) by the Citizenship Amendment
Act (CAA), 2019. Article 26 of the ICCPR guarantees equality before the law and equal
protection of the law without discrimination on any ground, including race, color, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or
other status.

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019 prima facie violates Article 26 as it
expressly discriminates against individuals belonging to the Muslim community by
explicitly excluding them from the purview of its benefits. Such treatment based on
religious affiliation is a clear violation.
By granting preferential treatment to certain religious groups while excluding others,
the CAA denies equal protection of the law to individuals based solely on their
religion. It fosters division and sectarianism within society and such actions are
antithetical to the spirit of Article 26 of the ICCPR.
This act is in clear violation of India’s international human rights obligations as it has
received criticism from international human rights groups like Amnesty international as well
as the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, which have called the act
“inherently discriminatory”.
Several nations, including Germany and the United States, have expressed their
dissatisfaction, stating that "equal treatment under the law for all communities and respect for
religious freedom are fundamental democratic principles."

The exclusion of Muslims from the CAA may be detrimental to India's diplomatic ties with
11
countries that have a majority of Muslims, especially those like the UAE and Indonesia with
which India has close historical, economic, or cultural ties.

Furthermore, the Act ignores Muslim minority groups that are persecuted, including the
Afghan refugees escaping the Taliban and the Rohingyas from Myanmar, who are refused
expediated citizenship based only on their religious beliefs. This leads to unequal treatment; a
Hindu who is escaping the Taliban in Afghanistan, for instance, receives different treatment
than a Muslim under the same circumstances. It is not addressed why targeted minority like
the Tamils of Sri Lanka or the Rohingyas of Myanmar do not enjoy similar protections.

Moreover, the Act ignores the diversity that exists within the Muslim community, including
the disparities in the experiences of persecution that Ahmadiyya and Shia Muslims have in
these nations. There are questions regarding the coherence of India's position on defending
marginalized communities in light of this selective exclusion. Moreover, as highlighted in the
petition, India's exclusion of a number of oppressed groups in South Asia, including Hazaras,
Rohingya Muslims, and refugees from Bhutan, goes against the same humanitarian ideals that
the country has long preached.

I request the lordship to consider all the facts of arguments that the council of petitioner has
presented and
May it please the Hon’ble Court,
On behalf of the petitioner, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to:
- Declare the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, wholly or partially, unconstitutional
and void for violating the right to equality enshrined under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
- Declare the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, incompatible with India's
obligations under Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) and uphold the principles of justice, fairness, and constitutional
morality by striking down the provisions of the CAA that discriminate based on
religion.
- Issue an appropriate writ, including but not limited to a writ of mandamus or
certiorari, directing the Respondent (Union of India) to repeal the Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 2019, and the Citizenship Amendment Rules 2024.
- Issue such other orders, or directions as this Court may deem fit in the interest of
justice.

12
Rebuttal

- Locus standi: jurisdiction had already been established.

- Reasonable classification? Justification?
- Classification- selective
- State relation- sri laka
- Ahmaddiya and shias persecution from these specific countries have not been
included.
Even if they have other options, any law made in violation of FR is void under art 13

Dubai wala point-economic relstion –

Legislative wisdom? Arbitrary

13