2ND RNBGU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

2ND RNB GLOBAL UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2018
2nd RNBGU NATIONAL

MOOT COURT COMPETITION
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

OF SOUTH KINGONDOM
Original Civil Jurisdiction

U
In the matter of,
Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955
Section 2&4 of The Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam Act, 1950
Articles 5, 6, 14, 21, 29(1),325,326 & 355 of Constitution of South Kingondom
W.P. NO. ______/2018
(Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of Constitution)
Some Citizen of Jangasam…………………………………… PETITIONER
VERSUS
Union of South Kingondom & Ors. ………………………. RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
S.No. Heading Page No.
1 List of Abbreviations 3
2 Index of Authorities 4-7
3 Statement of Jurisdiction 8
4 Statement of Facts 9-10
5 Statement of Issues 11
6 Summary Of Arguments 12-14
7 Arguments Advanced 15-30

The challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship
7(1) (Amendment) Act, 1985 is not barred by delay and laches and the writ petition 15-18
is maintainable.
The sovereignty and integrity of South Kingondom is itself at stake and pleas
7(2) against violation of Articles 21&29 of the Constitution, the petitions cannot be 19-21
dismissed at threshold on the ground of delay/laches alone.
Section 6A of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985 violates Articles 325 and
7(3) 326 of the Constitution of South Kingondom. 22-23
Section 6A of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985 violates Article 29(1).
7(4) 24-26
There is a necessity of issuing appropriate directions to the Union of South
7(5) Kingondom and the State of Jangasam to ensure that effective steps are taken 27-28
to prevent illegal access to the country from North Kingondom.
The mechanism of deportation of illegal migrants after they are detected to be
7(6) illegal migrants. 29-30
8 Prayer 31
-MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER- Page 2 of 31 -TABLE OF CONTENTS-

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION ACTUAL TERM
AC Appeal Cases
AIR All India Reporter
All. Allahabad
All ER All England Law Reports (United Kingdom)
Asm. Assam
Cr.L.J Criminal Law Journal
FIR First Information Report
Gau. Guwahati
HL House of Lords
I.T.O Income Tax Officer
Ker. Kerala
Ori. Orissa
Para. Paragraph
SCALE Supreme Court Almanac
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCJ Supreme Court Journal
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
SCW Supreme Court Weekly
Supdt. Superintendent
-MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER- Page 3 of 31 -LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS-

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 Judicial Pronouncements:
S.No. Name of the Case Citation Page
No.
1 A.M .Patroni vs. E.C.Kesavan A.I.R.1964 Ker.478. 25
2 Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab (1997) 11 SCC 123. 20

Khan Gulab Khan
3 Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha & Ors vs Union Of (2015) 3 SCC 1 21,29

India & Ors
4 Basheshar Nath v. CIT, Delhi, Rajasthan [(1959) Supp (1) SCR 528] 18
5 Collector (LA) v. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107 17
6 D. A.V College Jalandhar v State of Punjab AIR 1971 SC 1737 24
7 Dayal Singh v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 593. 17
8 Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. District (1992) 2 SCC 598 17
Board, Bhojpur
9 Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and (1969) 1 SCC 185. 17

Exports,
10 Francis Corallie Mullin v. Administrator, Union AIR 1981 SC 746 20

Territory of Delhi
11 I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab [(1967) 2 SCR 762] 18
-MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER- Page 4 of 31 -Index of authorities-

12 In re. Kerala Education Bill 1957 AIR 1958 SC 956 at 976. 26
13 Jagdev Singh Sidhanti vs. Pratap Singh Daulta AIR 1965 SC 183 24
14 LIC of India Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen (2010) 4 SCC 491 27
15 Louis De Raedt vs. Union of India 1991 (3) SCC 554 19
16 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 20
17 Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal AIR 1986 SC 180 20

Corporation
18 Ramani Kantha Bose v. Gauhati A.I.R.1951 Assam 163. 25
19 Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of (1974) 1 SCC 317 18

Maharashtra
20 S.P. Gupta and others v. President of India and AIR 1982 SC 149. 16
Others
21 Santosh v. Ministry of H.R.D., (1994) 6 SCC 579 26
22 Sarbananda Sonowal vs Union Of India A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 2920 20
23 Sarbananda Sonowal(II) vs Union Of India (2007) 1 SCC 174. 28
24 Shankara Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. M. (2011) 5 SCC 607 17

Prabhakar
25 Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame AIR 1990 SC 630 20
26 State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Khudi Ram 1994 (Supp.) SCC 615 19

Chakma

27 State of Bombay vs. Bombay Education Society AIR 1954 SC 561 25

& Ors
28 State of Jammu and Kashmir v. R.K. Zalpuri CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 21

8390-8391 OF 2015
(S.L.P.(C) NOS.11203-
11204 OF 2014)
29 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shah Muhammad AIR 1969 SC 1234 23
30 T.K. Dingal v. State of West Bengal (2009) 1 SCC 768. 21
31 The Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. AIR 1981 SC 344 16

Union of India
32 Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi & Anr 1969 1 SCC 110. 20
33 Tukaram Kana Joshi And Ors. Vs. Maharashtra (2013) 1 SCC 353. 17
Industrial Development Corporation & Ors
34 W. Proost and others vs. State of Bihar AIR 1969 SC 465 25
 Books, Treatises & Digests:

nd
 Arvind P. Datar, Datar Commentary On Constitution Of India (2 Ed. Reprint 2010)
th
 Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of India (14 Ed. Reprint 2011, Lexis
Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur)
th
 H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India: A critical commentary (4 Ed. Reprint 1999,
Universal Book Traders, Delhi)
th
 M.P. Jain, Indian Constitution Law (6 Ed. Reprint 2012, Lexis Nexis Butterworth
Wadhwa, Nagpur)
th
 P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of India (14 Ed. 2017, Universal Law Publishing)
 Pratap Bhanu Mehta, The Oxford Handbook of The Indian Constitution (Reprint 2016,
Oxford Publications)

 Statutes, Legislations & International

Conventions:
 The Constitution of India, 1950
 The Immigrants (Exclusion from Assam) Act, 1950
 The Citizenship Act, 1955
 The Foreigners Act, 1956
 The Immigrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983
 The Immigrants (Determination by Tribunals) Order, 2006
 Websites Referred:
 www.scconline.com
 www.manupatrafast.com
 www.indiankanoon.com
 www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is most humbly submitted that, the Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court with a writ petition
filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of South Kingondom. The petitioner has approached this
Hon’ble court in apprehension of the violation of fundamental rights that inevitably occur should the
implementation of the legislation of the government not be stopped. Therefore, the petitioner
maintains that the jurisdiction of Art. 32 of the constitution, which protects the citizens of South
Kingondom from any violation of their fundamental rights, is applicable in the present case. The
present memorandum contains the facts, contentions and arguments of the present case.
The Article 32 of Constitution of South Kingondom reads as hereunder:
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 clause ( 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.
-MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER- Page 8 of 31 -STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION-

STATEMENT OF FACTS
 Factual Background:
 In a Sovereign Democratic country of Kingondom, an event happened about 100 years ago which
altered permanently the whole feature of one of its province Jangasam and destroyed the whole
structure of Jangasamese culture and civilization. There has been an invasion of a vast horde of
land-hungry immigrants mostly Muslims, from the districts of an adjoining Topdum, another
Province of Kingondom. To cope with the situation the Government of Kingondom enacted a
Foreigners Act of 1946 under which the burden of proving whether a person is or is not a foreigner
lies upon such person.
 Thereafter, about 70 years ago, the State of Kingondom was partitioned into two independent
sovereign States, one South Kingondom and the other South Kingondom. Topdum, earlier a
Province of Kingondom now is a part of North Kingondom.
 A new Constitution came into force in South Kingondom. After the commencement of this
Constitution of South Kingondom, under Article 35 it stated the requirements to be a citizen of South
Kingondom. Article 36 of Constitution of South Kingondom acts as an exception to Article 35.
 Procedural background:
 The Immigrants (Expulsion from Jangasam), Act 1950 was enacted by South Kingondom to protect
the indigenous inhabitants of its province Jangasam. The statement of objects and reasons of this Act
says "during the last few months a serious situation had arisen from the immigration of a very large
number of North Kingondom residents into Jangasam. Such large migration is disturbing the economy
of the province, besides giving rise to a serious law and order problem. The bill seeks to confer
necessary powers on the Central Government to deal with the situation."
 During the census of 1951 in South Kingondom a National Register of Citizens was prepared under a
directive of the Ministry of Home Affairs containing information village-wise of each and every
person enumerated therein.
 Between 1948 and 1971, there were large scale migrations from North Kingondom to Jangasam, a
province of South Kingondom. Given the continuing influx of illegal migrants from North
Kingondom into Jangasam, the Parliament of South Kingondom enacted the Illegal Migrants
(Determination by Tribunal) 1983. This Act was made applicable only to Jangasam and was expected
to be a measure which speeded up the determination of illegal migrants in the State of Jangasam with
a view to their deportation.
-MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER- Page 9 of 31 -STATEMENT OF FACTS-

 The Parliament of South Kingondom inserted a new section 6A in its Citizenship Act in 1985. Thus
the dangerous consequences of large scale illegal migration from North Kingondom, both for the
people of Jangasam and more for the Nation as a whole, was required to be empathetically stressed.
As a result of population movement from North Kingondom, the spectre loomed large of the
indigenous people of Jangasam being reduced to a minority in their home state. Their cultural survival
was in jeopardy, their political control was weakened and their employment opportunities were
undermined.
 The silent and invidious demographic invasion of Jangasam resulted in the loss of the geo-
strategically vital districts of lower Jangasam. The influx of illegal migrants was turning these districts
into a Muslim majority region. It was felt that it will then only be a matter of time when a demand for
their merger with North Kingondom may be made. The rapid growth of international Islamic
fundamentalism may provide the driving force for this demand. Loss of lower Jangasam will severe
the entire land mass of the North East, from the rest of South Kingondom and the rich natural
resources of that region will be lost to the Nation.
 It was in this backdrop that a writ petition was filed by a citizen of South Kingondom assailing the
Constitutional validity of "The Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983" and the rules
made thereunder.
 In a judgment the Supreme Court of South Kingondom referred to the huge influx of illegal migrants
into the State of Jangasam and came to the conclusion that the 1983 Act and the rules made
thereunder operated in the reverse direction i.e. instead of seeing that illegal migrants are deported, it
did the opposite by placing the burden of proof on the State to prove that a person happens to be an
illegal migrant. The Court went on to hold that Article 355 of the Constitution had been violated, in as
much as the Union had failed to protect the State of Jangasam against the external aggression and
internal disturbance caused by the huge influx of illegal migrants from North Kingondom to Jangasam
and went on to hold the 1983 Act to be violative of Article 14 as well. In as much as this Act was
struck down, the Immigrants (Expulsion from Jangasam) Act, 1950 together with the Foreigners
Act and the Foreigners Tribunal Order of 1964 were now to be the tools in the hands of Government
to do the job of detecting illegal migrants who were then to be deported.
 Given the magnitude of the problem, a Foreigners (Tribunals for Jangasam) Order of 2006 was
promulgated which was again struck down on the petition of the same citizen by the Supreme Court
of South Kingondom being found to be unreasonable and arbitrary and which instead of expeditiously
discovering illegal migrants and deporting them, again did the opposite.
 In the year 2012 and in 2014 large scale riots took place in Jangasam resulting in the deaths of a large
number of persons.
It is in this background that the present writ petition was filed.
-MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER- Page 10 of 31 -STATEMENT OF FACTS-

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the

Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985 is barred by delay and laches?
2. Whether the petitions can be dismissed at the threshold on the

ground of delay/laches, when the sovereignty and integrity of South
Kingondom is itself at stake and pleas against the violation of Articles
21 & 29?
3. Whether Section 6A of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985

violates Articles 325 and 326 of the Constitution of South Kingondom
in that it has diluted the political rights of the citizens of the State of
Jangasam?
4. Whether Section 6A of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985

violates Article 29(1)?
5. Whether there is a necessity of issuing appropriate directions to the

Union of South Kingondom and the State of Jangasam to ensure that
effective steps are taken to prevent illegal access to the country from
North Kingondom?
6. What should be the mechanism of deportation of illegal migrants

after they are detected to be illegal migrants?
-MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER- Page 11 of 31 -STATEMENT OF ISSUES-

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. The challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the

Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985 is not barred by delay and laches
and the writ petition is maintainable.
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the present writ petition to challenge the
constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985 is not barred by the
doctrine of delay and laches and the present writ petition is maintainable.
As the petitioner has a locus standi to approach the court for violation of Fundamental rights
guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 & 29(1) and constitutional rights provided under Articles 325, 326
and 355. The present writ petition is filed and seeking a writ in nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or decision by court holding Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 as
discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal and consequently striking down the impugned provision as
ultra- vires the Constitution of South Kingondom. The principles of Limitation Act doesn’t apply in
case of petition filed under Article 32, thereby the court has to take into account the facts and
circumstances of each case before dismissing petition on ground of delay and laches. Hence, the writ
petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble Court.
2. The sovereignty and integrity of South Kingondom is itself at stake and

the pleas against the violation of Articles 21 and 29 of the Constitution,
the petitions cannot be dismissed at the threshold on the ground of
delay/laches alone.
It is most humbly submitted that in the present case, the petitioner in the writ petition represent an
entire people – the tribal and non-tribal population of the State of Jangasam. In their petition, they
have raised a plea that the sovereignty and integrity of South Kingondom is itself at stake as a massive
influx of illegal migrants from a neighbouring country has affected this core Constitutional value. By
the influx of illegal migrants from the neighbouring countries, the right to shelter, employment and
the protection of the cultural values of original inhabitants is in jeopardy causing them to become a
minority in their own Home state. Thus, there has been a gross infringement of Fundamental Rights
guaranteed under Article 14, 21 and 29(1).
-MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER- Page 12 of 31 -SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS-

The Amendment in Citizenship Act, 1985 has brought special provision for State of Jangasam, which
is discriminatory and arbitrary under Article 14. Hence, the present writ petition is filed and seeking a
writ in nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or decision by court holding Section 6A
of the Citizenship Act, 1955 as discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal and consequently striking
down the impugned provision as ultra- vires the Constitution.
3. Section 6A of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985 violates Articles

325 and 326 of the Constitution of South Kingondom.
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Section 6A of the Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 1985 violates Articles 325 and 326 of the Constitution of South Kingondom as it
dilutes the political rights of the citizens of Jangasam by providing all rights of citizens and entering
of their names in the electoral rolls after a period of 10 years, conferring them with dual citizenship.
Section 6(A) of the Citizenship Act confers ‘deemed’ citizenship to ‘persons from undivided South
Kingondom’ (presently Bangladesh) in utter violation of Section 5(b) of this Act. It is also violation of
Article 355 of the Constitution; as instead of saving Jangasam from the menace of illegal migration, it
has legitimize the stay of the illegal migrants in Jangasam. Hence, The petitioner in the instant case
has filed the writ petition praying for a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate
writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) declaring Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 as
discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal and consequently striking down impugned provision as ultra-
vires the Constitution of South Kingondom.
4. Section 6A of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985 violates Article

29(1).
(Amendment) Act, 1985 violates Article 29(1) of the Constitution of South Kingondom. Article 29(1)
is not subjected to any reasonable restrictions. The right conferred upon the citizens to conserve their
language, Script and culture is made absolute by the Constitution. In the instant case, there has been a
violation of the minority rights of the original inhabitants of Jangasam who have been limited to a
minority in their own state and their cultural survival was in jeopardy, their political control was
weakened and their employment opportunities were undermined infringing Fundamental Right under
Article 29(1) which talks about conservation of culture of minorities.
Hence, The petitioner has filed the present writ petition asking for a writ in the nature of Certiorari
or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) declaring Section 6A of the Citizenship
Act, 1955 as discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal and consequently striking down the impugned
provision as ultra-vires the Constitution of South Kingondom.
-MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER- Page 13 of 31 - SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS -

5. There is a necessity of issuing appropriate directions to the Union of

South Kingondom and the State of Jangasam to ensure that effective
steps are taken to prevent illegal access to the country from North
Kingondom.
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that there has been a necessity of issuing
appropriate directions to the Union of South Kingondom and the State of Jangasam to ensure that
effective steps are taken to prevent illegal access to the country from North Kingondom. The Union of
South Kingondom has time and again failed to deal with the issue of entry of illegal migrants in a
stern way. Instead of deporting the illegal migrants, it only classify them as migrants. The provisions
of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 and the Illegal Migrants
(Determination by Tribunals) Rules, 1984 are declared to be ultra vires the Constitution of India and
are struck down by the Supreme Court. Also, Foreigners (Tribunals for Assam) Order of 2006 was
promulgated which was again struck down being found to be unreasonable and arbitrary and which
instead of expeditiously discovering illegal migrants and deporting them, again did the opposite.
Therefore, The petitioner has filed the present writ petition to be granted with a writ in the nature of
Mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) directing the Union of South
Kingondom and The Registrar of National Register of Citizens to update the National Register of
Citizens with respect to the State of Jangasam relying only on the details incorporated in the National
Register of Citizens prepared in 1951.
6. The mechanism of deportation of illegal migrants after they are detected

to be illegal migrants.
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the petitioner has filed the present writ
petition and prays for issuing writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s),
order(s) or direction(s) directing the respondents to treat 1951 as the base year for the purpose of
detection and deportation of illegal immigrants in the State of Jangasam and directing the
Government of South Kingondom and State of Jangasam to immediately take effective steps
towards ensuring the deportation of the illegal immigrants from the territory of South Kingondom.
The challenge of stemming this flow and repatriating the illegal immigrants back to Bangladesh is
indeed daunting. A bundle of multipronged, well-coordinated strategies pursued under an appropriate
legal framework might be better able to address this problem in a more effective manner. Tightening
of Border Forces, regular monitoring, passing of a national legal framework for refugees and signing
of a bilateral agreement with the Government of Bangladesh to deport the illegal migrants. Hence, the
petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Court to issue directions and implement a mechanism of
deportation of illegal migrants after their detection.
-MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER- Page 14 of 31 - SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS -

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. The challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the

Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985 is not barred by delay and laches
and the writ petition is maintainable.
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the present writ petition to challenge the
constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985 is not barred by the
doctrine of delay and laches and the present writ petition is maintainable.
Article 32 of the Constitution which has been described as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution
guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of all or any of the fundamental
rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution. This Article is, therefore, itself a fundamental right
and it is in this backdrop that we need to address the preliminary submission on behalf of respondents.
(a) The Petitioner has a locus standi to file writ petition

The rule of ‘Locus Standi’ implies that who can apply for an appropriate remedy under Article 32 (1).
The traditional rule answer that the right to move the Supreme Court is only available to those whose
fundamental rights are infringed. The power vested in the Supreme Court can only be exercised for
the enforcement of fundamental rights. The writ under which the remedy is asked under Article 32
must be correlated to one of the fundamental rights sought to be enforced. The above traditional rule
of Locus Standi that a petition under article 32 can only be filed by a person whose fundamental right
is infringed has now been considerably relaxed by the Supreme Court in its rulings.
The Court now permits public interest litigations (PIL) or social interest litigations at the instance of
‘Pubic Spirited Citizens’ for the enforcement of Constitutional and other legal rights of any person or
group of persons who because of their poverty or socially or economically disadvantaged position are
unable to approach the Court for relief. 1
In the instant case, a citizen has filed a writ petition invoking the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court to
grant a writ in nature of Certiorari declaring Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 as
ultra-vires the Constitution as the influx of illegal immigrants has loomed the indigenous people of
Assam being reduced to a minority in their home state. Their cultural survival is in jeopardy, their
political control is weakened and their employment opportunities are undermined.
nd
1
Arvind P. Datar, Datar Commentary On Constitution Of India (2 Ed. Reprint 2010)
-MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER- Page 15 of 31 -ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-

Underlining the significance of Article 32, the Supreme Court has characterized the jurisdiction
conferred on it by Article 32 in The Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India 2 as
“an important and integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution.” Because it is meaningless to
confer fundamental rights without providing an effective remedy for their enforcement, if and when
they are violated. A right without a remedy is a legal conundrum of a most grotesque kind. Article 32
confers one of the highly cherished rights. 3
This jurisdiction would certainly be able to minimize, if not completely stop, the abuse of power by
public authorities. Henceforth they would be much more vigilant in exercising their powers and
performing their Constitutional and statutory duties and obligations towards the people, particularly
poor and helpless persons. If public property is dissipated, it would require a strong argument to
convince the Court that representative segments of the public or at least a section of public would
have no right to complain of the infraction of public duties and obligations. Public enterprises are
owned by the people and those who run them are accountable to the people. The accountability of the
public sector to the Parliament is ineffective. In such cases the Court would be under duty to interfere.
(b) Principles of Limitation Act does not apply in Writ Jurisdiction
It is most humbly submitted that when a writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court under
Art.32 of the Constitution of South Kingondom, the Court’s power to enforce fundamental rights is
the widest. There is no limitation in regard to the kind of proceedings envisaged in Article 32(1)
except that the proceeding must be ‘appropriate’ and this requirement must be judged in the light of
the purpose for which the proceeding is to be taken, namely, enforcement of fundamental rights. it is
not obligatory for the court to follow adversary system. 4
In South Kingondom, the Limitation Act which prescribes different periods of limitation for suits,
petitions or applications. There are also residuary articles which prescribe limitation in those cases
where no express period is provided. If it were a matter of a suit or application, either an appropriate
article or the residuary article would have applied. But a petition under Article 32 is not a suit and it is
also not a petition or an application to which the Limitation Act applies. To put curbs in the way of
enforcement of Fundamental Rights through legislative action might well be questioned under Article
13(3). The reason is also quite clear. If a short period of limitation were prescribed the Fundamental
Right might well be frustrated. Prescribing too long a period might enable stale claims to be made to
the detriment of other rights which might emerge. Therefore, the question is one of discretion for this
Court to follow from case to case. There is no lower limit and there is no upper limit.
2
AIR 1981 SC 344.
3
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Nagpur : Wadhwa and Company (2017) at p 703.
4
S.P. Gupta and others v. President of India and Others, AIR 1982 SC 149.
-MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER- Page 16 of 31 - ARGUMENTS ADVANCED -

In Tukaram Kana Joshi And Ors. Vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation &
Ors 5 it has been ruled that: - “Delay and laches is adopted as a mode of discretion to decline exercise
of jurisdiction to grant relief. But, there is another facet. The Court is required to exercise judicial
discretion. The said discretion is dependent on facts and circumstances of the cases. Delay and laches
is one of the facets to deny exercise of discretion. It is not an absolute impediment. There can be
mitigating factors, continuity of cause action, etc. That apart, if the whole thing shocks the judicial
conscience, then the Court should exercise the discretion more so, when no third-party interest is
involved. Thus analyzed, the petition is not hit by the doctrine of delay and laches as the same is not a
constitutional limitation, the cause of action is continuous and further the situation certainly shocks
judicial conscience”.
And again:- “No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to
exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise
guilty of laches. 6 Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim
made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. 7 In other words, where
circumstances justifying the conduct exist, the illegality which is manifest cannot be sustained on the
sole ground of laches. 8 When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each
other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have
a vested right in the injustice being done, because of a non-deliberate delay. 9 The court should not
harm innocent parties if their rights have in fact emerged by delay on the part of the petitioners. 10
The learned Chief Justice, M. Hidayatullah, C.J. observed that:
“The implications of this decision are bound to be far reaching. It is likely to pull down from
the high pedestal now occupied by the fundamental rights to the level of other civil rights. I
am apprehensive that this decision may mark an important turning point in downgrading the
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. I am firmly of the view that a relief
asked for under Article 32 cannot be refused on the ground of laches. The provisions of the
Limitation Act have no relevance either directly or indirectly to proceedings under Article 32
and left it to be decided on the facts of each case depending on what the breach of the
fundamental right is, what the remedy claimed is, and when and how the delay arose.”
Sikri J., on the other hand was in favour of an inflexible time limit that is not beyond one year. Both
Bachawat and Mitter, J., were observant that whether time under the Limitation Act had run out, and
if so, whether the writ petition ought to be dismissed as a result.
5
(2013) 1 SCC 353.
6
Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, (1969) 1 SCC 185.
7
Shankara Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. M. Prabhakar, (2011) 5 SCC 607.
8
Collector (LA) v. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107.
9
Dayal Singh v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 593.
10
Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur, (1992) 2 SCC 598.

Therefore, It is most humbly urged before the Hon’ble Court that the decision of the Hon’ble Court in
Tilokchand Motichand case needs review as there cannot be a waiver of fundamental rights of a
person as elaborately considered in Basheshar Nath v. CIT, Delhi, Rajasthan11 by a Constitution
Bench and held that there could be no waiver of a fundamental right founded on Article 14.
Admittedly the provisions contained in the Limitation Act do not apply to proceedings under Article
226 or Article 32. The Constitution makers wisely excluded the application of those provisions to
proceedings under Articles 226, 227 and 32 lest the efficacy of the constitutional remedies should be
left to the tender mercies of the legislatures.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down in I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab12 that the
Parliament cannot by amending the Constitution abridge the fundamental rights conferred under Part
III of the Constitution. If we are to bring in the provisions of Limitation Act by an indirect process to
control the remedies conferred by the Constitution it would mean that what the Parliament cannot do
directly it can do indirectly by curtailing the period of limitation for suits against the Government.
In Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra 13, a Constitution Bench was invited to
dismiss a petition filed under Article 32 on the ground of laches. The petitioner having approached the
court after a delay of eight years, the Court held that barring a writ petition containing stale claims is
not a rule of law but a rule of practice based on sound and proper discretion. There is no inviolable
rule that whenever there is a delay, the court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition.
(c) A writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ shall be granted
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any
other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) declaring Section 6A of the Citizenship Act,
1955 as discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal and consequently striking down the impugned
provision as ultra- vires the Constitution of South Kingondom.
In the instant case, the silent and invidious demographic invasion of Jangasam resulted in the loss
of the geo-strategically vital districts of lower Jangasam. The influx of illegal migrants was
turning these districts into a Muslim majority region. It was felt that it will then only be a matter of
time when a demand for their merger with North Kingondom may be made. The rapid growth
of international Islamic fundamentalism may provide the driving force for this demand. Loss of
lower Jangasam will severe the entire land mass of the North East, from the rest of South
Kingondom and the rich natural resources of that region will be lost to the Nation.
Therefore, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ declaring Section 6A of the Citizenship
Act, 1955 as ultra vires the constitution of India.
11
[(1959) Supp (1) SCR 528]
12
[(1967) 2 SCR 762]
13
(1974) 1 SCC 317

2. The sovereignty and integrity of South Kingondom is itself at stake and

the pleas against the violation of Articles 21 and 29 of the Constitution, the
petitions cannot be dismissed at the threshold on the ground of delay/laches
alone.
It is most humbly submitted that in the present case, the petitioner in the writ petition represent an
entire people – the tribal and non-tribal population of the State of Jangasam. In their petition, they
have raised a plea that the sovereignty and integrity of South Kingondom is itself at stake as a massive
influx of illegal migrants from a neighbouring country has affected this core Constitutional value.
That, in fact, it has been held in Sarbananda Sonowal vs Union Of India 14 case that such an influx
is “external aggression” within the meaning of Article 355 of the Constitution of India, and that the
Central Government has done precious little to stem this tide thereby resulting in a violation of Article
355. As a result of this huge influx, periodic clashes have been taking place between the citizens of
India and these migrants resulting into loss of life and property, sounding in a violation of Articles 21
and 29 of the Constitution of the Assamese people as a whole.
In the instant case, there has been instances of not only an assault on the life of the citizenry of the
State of Jangsam but there is an assault on their way of life as well. The culture of an entire people is
being eroded in such a way that they will ultimately be swamped by persons who have no right to
continue to live in this country.
In Louis De Raedt vs. Union of India 15, The Apex Court has held that the power of the Government
of India to expel foreigners is absolute and unlimited and there is no provision in the Constitution
fettering its discretion and the executive government has unrestricted right to expel a foreigner. So far
as right to be heard is concerned, there cannot be any hard and fast rule about the manner in which a
person concerned has to be given an opportunity to place his case.
In State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Khudi Ram Chakma 16, following Louis De Raedt 17, it was held
that the fundamental right of a foreigner is confined to Article 21 for life and liberty and does not
include the right to reside and stay in this country, as mentioned in Article 19(1)(e), which is
applicable only to the citizens of the country. After referring to some well-known and authoritative
books on International Law it was observed that the persons who reside in the territories of countries
of which they are not nationals, possess a special status under International Law. States reserve the
right to expel them from their territory and to refuse to grant them certain rights which are enjoyed by
their own nationals like right to vote, hold public office or to engage in political activities.
14
A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 2920
15
1991 (3) SCC 554
16
1994 (Supp.) SCC 615
17
Supra 15.

Aliens may be debarred from joining the civil services or certain profession or from owning some
properties and the State may place them under restrictions in the interest of national security or public
order. Nevertheless, once lawfully admitted to a territory, they are entitled to certain immediate rights
necessary to the enjoyment of ordinary private life.
In Sarbananda Sonowal vs Union Of India 18, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had the opportunity to
decide a case with similar facts and held that Bangladeshi nationals who have illegally crossed the
border and have trespassed into Assam or are living in other parts of the country have no legal right
of any kind to remain in India and are liable to be deported. They have also raised a fervent plea that
Article 14 also continues to be violated as Section 6A (3) to (5) are not time bound but are on-going.
Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi & Anr. 19 is a judgment involving property rights of
individuals. Ramchandra Deodhar’s case 20, also of a Constitution Bench of five judges has held that
the fundamental right under Article 16 cannot be wished away solely on the ‘jejune’ ground of delay.
Since Tilokchand Motichand’s case 21 was decided, there have been important strides made in the
law. Property Rights have been removed from part III of the Constitution altogether by the
Constitution 44th Amendment Act. The same amendment made it clear that even during an
emergency, the fundamental right under Article 21 can never be suspended, and amended Article 359
(1) to give effect to this. The sole dissentient in the case was Hegde, J., who decided that Article 32
itself being a fundamental right, there is no question of delay being used to non-suit a petitioner at the
threshold and a writ petition under Article 32 cannot be refused to be entertained on grounds of delay
and laches alone.
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 22, decided nine years after Tilokchand Motichand23, Article
21 has been given its new dimension, and pursuant to the new dimension a huge number of rights
have come under the umbrella of Article 21.
Further, in Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation 24, the right to shelter has been
read into Art.21. as an essential concomitant of the fundamental right to life. 25 It has now been
conclusively held that all fundamental rights cannot be waived.
18
A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 2920
19
1969 1 SCC 110.
20
Supra 13.
21
Supra 19.
22
(1978) 1 SCC 248
23
Supra 19.
24
AIR 1986 SC 180; Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame, AIR 1990 SC 630; See also Protection
of Human Rights Act § 2(1)(d) (1993)
25
Francis Corallie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746; Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, (1997) 11 SCC 123.

In State of Jammu and Kashmir v. R.K. Zalpuri26, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the
principle of delay and laches would not affect the grant of relief in all types of cases. A writ court
while deciding a writ petition is required to remain alive to the nature of the claim and the
unexplained delay on the part of the writ petitioner. Stale claims are not to be adjudicated unless non-
interference would cause grave injustice.
After referring to Tilokchand Motichand 27 and Rabindranath Bose28, the Court held that the claim
for enforcement of the fundamental right of equal opportunity under Article 16 cannot be dismissed
solely on the ground of delay/laches etc.
Given these important developments in the law, the time has come for this Court to say that at least
when it comes to violations of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, delay or laches by
itself without more would not be sufficient to shut the doors of the court on any petitioner.
Therefore, the question is one of discretion for this Court to follow from case to case. There is no
lower limit and there is no upper limit. A case may be brought within the Limitation Act by reason of
some article but this Court need not necessarily give the total time to the litigant to move this Court
under Article 32. Similarly in a suitable case this Court may entertain such a petition even after a
lapse of time. It will all depend on what the breach of the fundamental right and the remedy claimed
are when and how the delay arose. 29
In Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors30, the Supreme Court observed
that: “When the contentions raised specifically with regard to pleas under Articles 21 and 29, of a
whole class of people, namely, the tribal and non-tribal citizens of Assam and given the fact that
agitations on this core are ongoing, we do not feel that petitions of this kind can be dismissed at the
threshold on the ground of delay/laches. Indeed, if we were to do so, we would be guilty of shirking
our Constitutional duty to protect lives of our own citizens and their culture. In fact, the time has
come to have relook at the doctrine of laches altogether when it comes to violations of Art. 21 & 29.”
Also, this amendment to the Citizenship Act is a violation of Article 14 of the South Kingondom
Constitution. This amendment was done on the basis of an artificial classification, bereft of any
rationale. This classification was specially made for Assam, which is nothing but discriminatory. As,
in Meghalaya, if a person is a post-1951 migrant he/she would face deportation.
Therefore, in the instant case, where there has been a gross violence of the fundamental rights of a
whole community of people, the original inhabitants of State of Jangasam’s right to shelter and life
has been infringed and also their cultural rights are in jeopardy. Hence, the petition liable to be heard.
26
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8390-8391 OF 2015 (S.L.P.(C) NOS.11203-11204 OF 2014)
27
Supra 19.
28
1970 SCR (2) 697.
29
T.K. Dingal v. State of West Bengal, (2009) 1 SCC 768.
30
(2015) 3 SCC 1.

3. Section 6A of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985 violates Articles

325 and 326 of the Constitution of South Kingondom.
(Amendment) Act, 1985 violates Articles 325 and 326 of the Constitution of South Kingondom as it
dilutes the political rights of the citizens of Jangasam. The petitioner in the instant case has filed the
writ petition praying for a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s)
or direction(s) declaring Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 as discriminatory, arbitrary and
illegal and consequently striking down impugned provision as ultra- vires the Constitution.
The issue of illegal immigrants began to fester in the state of Assam, culminating in wide-spread
protests in the form of the Assam Movement (1979-1985). The movement, characterised by intense
political instability and riots, was led by the All Assam Student’s Union (AASU) and the All Assam
Gana Sangam Parishad (AAGSP with a view to pressuring government officials into identifying and
deporting illegal migrants. The movement was the manifestation of Assamese fear, triggered by the
increase in the number of foreign nationals in the electoral list preceding the State Assembly Elections
in 1979. The AASU proposed postponing the elections till such time that the names of the foreign
nationals had been wiped off the list and the said nationals deported.
Following the movement, the “Assam Accord” was signed on 15 August 1985. The Accord was a
Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) between the AASU and the AAGSP and the central and state
governments to end the prevalent agitation in Assam and paved the way for the formation of the
Asom Gana Parishad, a political party which came into power in the subsequent elections. The Accord
contained provisions for the development of Assam, as well as obligating the Government to see
that “the international border shall be made secure against future infiltration by erection of physical
barriers like walls, barbed wire fencing and other obstacles at appropriate places. Also, provided
for two separate cut-off dates for regularisation of migrants.
Section 6A of the Citizenship Act – introduced through an amendment in 1985 – was the legislative
enactment of the legal part of the Assam Accord. Section 6A divided “illegal” immigrants of South
Kingondom origin (i.e., those whose parents or grandparents were born in undivided India) who came
into Jangasam from Bangladesh into three groups: The first group (came to the state before 1966) was
to be regularised. The second group (came to the state between 1966 and 1971) was to be taken off
the electoral rolls, and regularised after ten years. The third group (came to the state after 1971) was
to be detected and expelled in accordance with law.
The Parliament had passed the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals Act) of 1983. This Act
authorised Government to set up Tribunals for purposes of determining whether migrants were illegal.

Under the Act, the Government framed the Illegal Migrant Rules of 1984. The Act and the Rules,
taken together, made some departures from the procedure under the Foreigners Act and the Foreigners
Tribunal Order: for example, the procedure for making a reference to the Tribunal was made more
onerous, the burden of proof was shifted from the State to the individual, etc. While the Government
defended this regime on the basis of protecting minorities, who were genuine citizens of South
Kingondom, from persecution they were also attacked as being too lax on illegal migration, and
making it almost impossible to deport illegal migrants.
Moreover, the 1955 Citizenship Act of the country prescribes the procedure for acquisition of
citizenship by registration. Clause (b) of Section 5 of this legislation has provided that a person of
South Kingondom origin, who “resides in any country other than undivided South Kingondom are
eligible for South Kingondom citizenship.” Admittedly, Section 6A of the Citizenship Act confers
‘deemed’ citizenship to ‘persons from undivided South Kingondom’ (presently Bangladesh) in utter
violation of Section 5(b) of this Act.
These illegal migrants have been virtually conferred dual citizenship, as these migrants never
renounced their East Pakistan or Bangladesh citizenship. These people, as required under the
Citizenship Act of the country, have not taken any oath of allegiance to the Constitution.
The March 25, 1971 cut-off date has also violated Article 21 of the South Kingondom Constitution, as
this cut-off date is going to reduce the indigenous peoples of Assam into minorities in their own
homeland. Besides, it has also violated Articles 325 and 326 of the Constitution, by conferring
citizenship to the illegal migrants which has diluted their political rights as the deemed citizen’s
names would be enter in the electoral rolls after a period of 10 years giving them political
representation and they enjoy dual citizenship which is prohibited by the Constitution of South
Kingondom under Article 9. 31
Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is also violation of Article 355 of the Constitution, as instead of
abiding by its bounden duty to save Jangasam from the menace of illegal migration, the Government
inserted this section in the Citizenship Act to legitimize the stay of the illegal migrants in Assam.
Due to influx of illegal migrants who are provided with deemed citizenship, the original inhabitants of
State of Jangasam have been limited to a minority in their own state and has caused insecurity among
them that their political rights have been diluted as they have become a minority, their political
representation has been reduced. The deemed citizens after the period of 10 years will be included in
electoral rolls and could vote and elect their representatives which would harm the political interests
of the minority. Hence, S.6A of Citizenship Act, 1955 to be declared unconstitutional.
31
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shah Muhammad, AIR 1969 SC 1234.

4. Section 6A of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985 violates Article

29(1).
(Amendment) Act, 1985 violates Article 29(1) of the Constitution of South Kingondom. The
petitioner has filed the present writ petition asking for a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other
appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) declaring Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 as
ultra-vires the Constitution of South Kingondom.
Article 29(1) gives protection to every section of the citizens having a distinct language, script or
culture by guaranteeing their right to conserve the same. If such minorities desire to preserve their
own language and culture, the State would not stand in their way. A minority community can
effectively conserve its language, script or culture by and through educational institutions and,
therefore, the right to establish and maintain educational institutions of its choice is a necessary
concomitant to the right to conserve its distinctive language, script or culture and that is what is
conferred on all minorities by Article 30(1).
Article 29(1) is not subjected to any reasonable restrictions. The right conferred upon the citizens to
conserve their language, Script and culture is made absolute by the Constitution.
In D. A.V College Jalandhar v State of Punjab 32, it was held that “The provision, as we construe it,
is for the promotion of Punjabi studies and research and development of the Punjabi language,
literature and culture which is far from saying that the University can under that provision compel the
affiliated colleges particularly those of the minority to give instruction in the Punjabi language, or in
any way impede the right to conserve their languages, script and culture. If the University makes
provision for an academic and philosophical study and research on life and teachings of a saint, it
cannot be said that affiliated colleges are being required to compulsorily study his life and teachings.”
The scope of Article 29(1) was discussed by the Supreme Court in Jagdev Singh Sidhanti vs. Pratap
Singh Daulta 33, the Supreme Court held that Right to conserve the language of the citizens includes
the right to agitate for the protection of the language. Political agitation for conservation of the
language of a section of the citizens cannot therefore be regarded as a corrupt practice within the
meaning of Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act. Unlike Article 19(1) which
provides six freedoms, namely speech, assembly, associations, free movement, residence and
profession. But these freedoms are subject to reasonable restrictions provided in Art. 19(2) to 19(6).
Article 29(1) is not subject to any reasonable restrictions. 34 The basis of the Supreme Court
pronouncement was that Article 29(1) is not subject to any reasonable restriction like Article 19(1).
32
AIR 1971 SC 1737
33
AIR 1965 SC 183
34
Ibid. p. 188

Another important thing to be noted in this Article 29(1) is the application of the term ‘any section of
society instead of the word ‘minority’. So its application is to be taken in a much wider sense.
Generally, minorities are recognized in the World on the basis of religion, race and language but
Article 29(1), in addition included script and culture in its domain.
From the above discussion it is clear that the scope of the Article seems to be extraordinarily wide and
meaningful for the minorities in South Kingondom. It is to be noticed that Article 29 (1) does not refer
to any religion, even though the marginal note of the article mentions the interests of the minorities.
Article 29(1) essentially refers to sections of citizens who have a distinct language, script or culture,
even though their religion may not be the same. The common thread that runs through Article 29(1) is
language, script or culture, and not religion. Article 29(2) debars the State from denying to any citizen
admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds
on the ground only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. This prevision guarantees the
rights of a citizen as an individual irrespective of the community to which he belongs. Therefore, all
citizens irrespective of whether they belong to the majority or the minority groups are alike entitled to
the protection of Article 29(2) in the matter of admission to the educational institutions maintained or
aided by the State. 35
The Kerala High Court in A.M .Patroni vs. E.C.Kesavan36 held that as the word minority and not
been defined in the Constitution, it must be viewed that any community, religious or linguistic, which
is numerically less than 50 per cent of the population of the State, was entitled to the protection of
Article 30 and found that the Roman Catholics were a minority in Kerala.
In W. Proost and others vs. State of Bihar37, the Supreme Court held that the width of Article 30(1)
could not be cut down by introducing in it considerations on which Article 29(1) was based. Article
29(1) is a general protection given to the minorities to conserve their language etc., while Article
30(1) gives a special right to the minorities to establish institution of their ‘choice and the ‘choice’
cannot be limited to institutions seeking to conserve language, script or culture. 38
For the first time in the old case of Ramani Kantha Bose v. Gauhati 39, it fell on the Assam High
Court to explore the width and amplitude of "minority”• An interesting question arose in this case.
The college in question was situated in Dhubri, Assam. It was established by the Bengalis. Could it be
said that the Bengalis are a linguistic minority in the "area” or "locality"? It was held that they are a
minority and that the usage of the words "area" or "locality" may not be purposive but casual. If the
"area or locality test" is used for the determination of minority, it would lead to illogical conclusions.
35
State of Bombay vs. Bombay Education Society & Ors., AIR 1954 SC 561
36
A.I.R.1964 Ker.478.
37
AIR 1969 SC 465
38
Ibid. p. 468 para 8
39
A.I.R.1951 Assam 163.

The term 'Composite Culture' has not been defined in the Constitution therefore, it was left to the
judiciary to define it in due course of time. 'Composite culture', generally means unity in diversity or
synthesis of many cultures, which is one of the most prominent features of society. 40
While ascertaining the meaning of the meaning of the expression "culture" and the
expression "conserve", Articles 29 and 30 in relation to minorities, should be given attention as the
subject heading given to these Articles "cultural and educational rights" and their subsequent Article-
wise headings "Protection of interests of minorities" and "Right of minorities to establish and
administer educational institutions" respectively. These marginal headings and the drafting history of
these Articles make it clear that the intent of Constitution-makers was to protect cultural and
educational rights of minorities. The spirit of Constituent Assembly debates also point to the fact that
the object of these Articles was to safeguard the culture and language of minorities through education.
The idea of giving some special right to the minorities is not to treat them as privileged section of the
population but to give to the minorities a sense of security. Special rights for minorities were designed
not to create inequalities but to bring about equality by ensuring preservation of minority institutions
and by guaranteeing autonomy in the matter of administration of these institutions and also
contribute to preserve the rich diversity of the country and give minority a sense of security. 41
Together, Article 29 & 30 confers four distinct rights on minorities. These include the right of:
(a) Any sectіon of cіtіzens to conserve іts own language, scrіpt or culture;
(b) All religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational іnstіtutіons of choice;
(c) an educational institution against discrimination by State in the matter of State aid (on the
ground that it is under the management of religious or linguistic minority; and
(d) the citizen against denial of admission to any State-maintained or aided educational institution.
In the instant case, there has been a violation of the minority rights of the original inhabitants of
Jangasam who have been limited to a minority in their own state and their cultural survival was in
jeopardy, their political control was weakened and their employment opportunities were
undermined. Therefore, S.6A of Citizenship Act, 1955 which came after the Amendment in 1985 was
violative of Article 29(1) which talks about fundamental right of conservation of culture of minority.
Section 6A (3),(4),(5) talks about registration of a foreigner and providing him with the rights enjoyed
by the citizen of country and shall be deemed to be a citizen of South Kingondom for all purposes
as from the date of expiry of a period of ten years from the date on which he has been detected to
be a foreigner. This has caused a direct conflict with the cultural rights enshrined under Article 29(1)
which is an absolute right. Hence, it is most humbly prayed that the Court may be pleased to hold
Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 as unconstitutional and violative of Article 29(1).
40
Santosh v. Ministry of H.R.D., (1994) 6 SCC 579.
41
In re. Kerala Education Bill 1957, AIR 1958 SC 956 at 976.

5. There is a necessity of issuing appropriate directions to the Union of

South Kingondom and the State of Jangasam to ensure that effective
steps are taken to prevent illegal access to the country from North
Kingondom.
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that there has been a necessity of issuing
appropriate directions to the Union of South Kingondom and the State of Jangasam to ensure that
effective steps are taken to prevent illegal access to the country from North Kingondom. The
petitioner has filed the present writ petition to be granted with a writ in the nature of Mandamus or
any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) directing the Union of South Kingondom and
The Registrar of National Register of Citizens to update the National Register of Citizens with respect
to the State of Jangasam relying only on the details incorporated in the National Register of Citizens
prepared in 1951.
A writ petition was filed in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal vs Union Of India 42, the Apex Court
while discussing the problem being faced by the State of Assam due to illegal migration and their
continued presence in the State has been vividly discussed the alarming situation. While striking out
the IM(D)T Act, 1983, the Apex Court also dealt with the modality of proving one’s Indian
citizenship. It has been emphasized that the burden of proof is always on the proceedee as per
provisions of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946; dealing with the burden of proof, made the
following observation :- “There is good and sound reason for placing the burden of proof upon the
person concerned who asserts to be a citizen of a particular country. In order to establish one’s
citizenship, normally he may be required to give evidence of (i) his date of birth (ii) place of birth (iii)
name of his parents (iv) their place of birth and citizenship. Sometimes the place of birth of his
grandparents may also be relevant like under Section 6-A(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act. All these facts
would be necessarily be within the personal knowledge of the person concerned and not of the
authorities of the State. If the State authorities dispute the claim of citizenship by a person and assert
that he is a foreigner, it will not only be difficult but almost impossible for them to first lead evidence
on the aforesaid points. This is in accordance with the underlying policy of Section 106 of the
Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the
burden of proving that fact is upon him.”
In LIC of India Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen 43, Apex Court held that even admission of a document in
evidence does not amount to its proof, in other words, mere making of exhibit of a document does not
dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in accordance with law. It was the duty of the
petitioners to have proved the documents in accordance with law.
42
(2005) 5 SCC 665.
43
(2010) 4 SCC 491.

Under the Law of Evidence also, it is necessary that contents of documents are required to be proved
either by primary or by secondary evidence. At the most, admission of documents may amounts to
admission of contents but not its truth.
In the instant case, the dangerous consequences of large scale illegal migration from North
Kingondom, both for the people of Jangasam and more for the Nation as a whole, was required
to be empathetically stressed. The silent and invidious demographic invasion of Jangasam resulted
in the loss of the geo-strategically vital districts of lower Jangasam. The influx of illegal
migrants was turning these districts into a Muslim majority region.
Therefore, in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal (I) vs Union Of India 44, The Apex Court has held
that: (1) The provisions of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 and the
Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Rules, 1984 are declared to be ultra vires the
Constitution of India and are struck down; (2) The Tribunals and the Appellate Tribunals constituted
under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 shall cease to function; (3) All
cases pending before the Tribunals under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals ) Act,
1983 shall stand transferred to the Tribunals constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order,
1964 and shall be decided in the manner provided in the Foreigners Act, the Rules made thereunder
and the procedure prescribed under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964;(4) It will be open to the
authorities to initiate fresh proceedings under the Foreigners Act against all such persons whose
cases were not referred to the Tribunals by the competent authority whether on account of the
recommendation of the Screening Committee or any other reason whatsoever;(5) All appeals
pending before the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to have abated; (6) The respondents are
directed to constitute sufficient number of Tribunals under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 to
effectively deal with cases of foreigners, who have illegally come from Bangladesh or are illegally
residing in Assam.
Given the magnitude of the problem, a Foreigners (Tribunals for Assam) Order of 2006 was
promulgated which was again struck down being found to be unreasonable and arbitrary and which
instead of expeditiously discovering illegal migrants and deporting them, again did the opposite.
It was in the Sarbananda Sonowal(II) vs Union Of India 45, that the Supreme Court struck down
this order. This indeed proves the inability of the Union of South Kingondom to enact proper laws to
deport the illegal immigrants from the country. Therefore, a writ has been prayed before the Hon’ble
Court to provide appropriate directions to the Union of South Kingondom and the State of Jangasam
to ensure that effective steps are taken to prevent illegal access to the country from North Kingondom.
44
Supra 40.
45
(2007) 1 SCC 174.

6. The mechanism of deportation of illegal migrants after they are detected

to be illegal migrants.
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the petitioner has filed the present writ
petition and prays for issuing writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s),
order(s) or direction(s) directing the respondents to treat 1951 as the base year for the purpose of
detection and deportation of illegal immigrants in the State of Assam and directing the Government
of South Kingondom and State of Jangasam to immediately take effective steps towards ensuring
the deportation of the illegal immigrants from the territory of South Kingondom.
The challenge of stemming this flow and repatriating the illegal immigrants back to Bangladesh is
indeed daunting. A bundle of multipronged, well-coordinated strategies pursued under an appropriate
legal framework might be better able to address this problem in a more effective manner.
In a recent case of Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors 46 having
similar facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the necessity of issuing appropriate directions to
the Union of India and the State of Assam to ensure that effective steps are taken to prevent illegal
access to the country from Bangladesh; to detect foreigners belonging to the stream of 1.1.1966 to
24.3.1971 so as to give effect to the provisions of Section 6(3) & (4) of the Citizenship Act and to
detect and deport all illegal migrants who have come to the State of Assam after 25.3.1971. The Court
exercising the rule making power enshrined under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, passed the
following directions:
a) Border fencing, Border Roads and provision for flood lights

i. Complete the fencing along the Indo-Bangla Border
ii. Maintain the already completed fencing
iii. Repair the fencing so as to constitute an effective barrier to cross border trafficking
iv. Continuous patrolling along the riverine boundary
v. Motorable roads along the international border laid to increase effective patrolling
vi. Parts of the international border will be patrolled and monitored at vulnerable points that
could provide means of illegal entry
vii. Flood lights, wherever required, will also be provided
The court will monitor the progress with regard to these after 3 months and thereafter pass further
directions as necessary, including a definite time schedule for completion of the works relating to
border fencing, border roads and flood lights may be made by this Court.
46
(2015) 3 SCC 1.

b) Foreigners Tribunals
The court requested the Gauhati High Court to expedite and to finalise the process of selection of the
Chairperson and Members of the Foreigners Tribunals, if required in phases, depending on the
availability of officers opting to serve in the Tribunals. Within 60 days of the selection being finalized
by the Gauhati High Court, the State of Assam will ensure that the concerned Foreigners Tribunal
become operational. The Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court is requested to monitor the
functioning of the Tribunals by constituting a Special Bench which will sit at least once every month
to oversee the functioning of the Tribunals.
c) Existing Mechanism of Deportation of Declared Illegal Migrants

The court directed the Union of India to enter into necessary discussions with the Government of
Bangladesh to streamline the procedure of deportation and to enforce a bilateral agreement between
that provides for taking back nationals who stay illegally in the other country after due verification.
d) With regard to Monitoring

The implementation of the aforesaid directions will be monitored by this Court on the expiry of three
months from today. In the event it becomes so necessary, the Court will entrust such monitoring to be
undertaken by an empowered committee which will be constituted by this Court, if and when
required. The Supreme Court has also given orders that national registration of citizenship must be
completed in border areas by January 1, 2016.
e) International Commitments
Although India has traditionally been providing shelter to refugees from other countries in the region,
it has yet to develop any national refugee laws. Nor is it a signatory to the United Nations 1951
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. In the absence of any specific
law dealing with refugees/illegal immigrants, all foreigners in India are covered by the Foreigners
Act, 1946, which simply defines a foreigner as “a person who is not a citizen of India.” It does not
distinguish between refugees and illegal immigrants, nor does it define refugees as a specific category
needing humanitarian protection. In the absence of any legislation on the subject, refugee policy is
based on ad hoc and undefined administrative measures. However, it doesn’t cover Bangladeshi
nationals. India needs to enact a national refugee law so that refugees are clearly defined and can be
distinguished from illegal immigrants, followed by concerted action to detect Bangladeshi
immigrants, assign them to separate categories of refugees and illegal migrants, resettle or repatriate
them, and prevent any further influx. South Kingondom may also consider taking assistance and
advisory services from the UNHCR, the International Organization for Migration (IOM), and other
concerned international agencies with experience in this kind of complex issue.

PRAYER
In the light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and arguments advanced the Counsel for
the Petitioner respectfully requests the Hon’ble Supreme Court of South Kingondom to:
a) "a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or
direction(s) declaring Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 as discriminatory,
arbitrary and illegal and consequently striking down the impugned provision as ultra-
vires the Constitution of India;
b) a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or
direction(s) directing the respondent no.1 and 3 not to update the National Register of
Citizens with respect to the State of Assam by taking into account the electoral rolls prior
to March 24th (midnight) 1971;
c) a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or
direction(s) directing the respondent no 1 and 3 to update the National Register of
Citizens with respect to the State of Assam relying only on the details incorporated in the
National Register of Citizens prepared in 1951 ;
d) a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or
direction(s) directing the respondents to treat 1951 as the base year for the purpose of
detection and deportation of illegal immigrants in the State of Assam;
e) a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or
direction(s) directing the respondents no 1 and 2 to immediately take effective steps
towards ensuring the deportation of the illegal immigrants from the territory of India;
f) Issue Rule Nisi in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) above;
And pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of South Kingondom may deem fit
in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
All of which is humbly prayed.
Sd/-
Counsel for Petitioner
-MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER- Page 31 of 31 -PRAYER-

2ND RNBGU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

2ND RNBGU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

2ND RNB GLOBAL UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2018

2nd RNBGU NATIONAL

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

Original Civil Jurisdiction

In the matter of,

Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955

Section 2&4 of The Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam Act, 1950

Articles 5, 6, 14, 21, 29(1),325,326 & 355 of Constitution of South Kingondom

W.P. NO. ______/2018

(Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of Constitution)

Some Citizen of Jangasam…………………………………… PETITIONER

Union of South Kingondom & Ors. ………………………. RESPONDENT

S.No. Heading Page No.

2 Index of Authorities 4-7

4 Statement of Facts 9-10

6 Summary Of Arguments 12-14

7 Arguments Advanced 15-30

-MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER- Page 2 of 31 -TABLE OF CONTENTS-

ABBREVIATION ACTUAL TERM

AIR All India Reporter

All ER All England Law Reports (United Kingdom)

Cr.L.J Criminal Law Journal

FIR First Information Report

I.T.O Income Tax Officer

SCALE Supreme Court Almanac

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCJ Supreme Court Journal

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

SCW Supreme Court Weekly

-MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER- Page 3 of 31 -LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS-

1 A.M .Patroni vs. E.C.Kesavan A.I.R.1964 Ker.478. 25

2 Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab (1997) 11 SCC 123. 20

3 Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha & Ors vs Union Of (2015) 3 SCC 1 21,29

5 Collector (LA) v. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107 17

6 D. A.V College Jalandhar v State of Punjab AIR 1971 SC 1737 24

7 Dayal Singh v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 593. 17

9 Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and (1969) 1 SCC 185. 17

10 Francis Corallie Mullin v. Administrator, Union AIR 1981 SC 746 20

11 I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab [(1967) 2 SCR 762] 18

-MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER- Page 4 of 31 -Index of authorities-

12 In re. Kerala Education Bill 1957 AIR 1958 SC 956 at 976. 26

15 Louis De Raedt vs. Union of India 1991 (3) SCC 554 19

16 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 20

17 Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal AIR 1986 SC 180 20

18 Ramani Kantha Bose v. Gauhati A.I.R.1951 Assam 163. 25

19 Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of (1974) 1 SCC 317 18

21 Santosh v. Ministry of H.R.D., (1994) 6 SCC 579 26

22 Sarbananda Sonowal vs Union Of India A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 2920 20

23 Sarbananda Sonowal(II) vs Union Of India (2007) 1 SCC 174. 28

24 Shankara Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. M. (2011) 5 SCC 607 17

25 Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame AIR 1990 SC 630 20

26 State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Khudi Ram 1994 (Supp.) SCC 615 19

-MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER- Page 5 of 31 -Index of authorities-

27 State of Bombay vs. Bombay Education Society AIR 1954 SC 561 25

28 State of Jammu and Kashmir v. R.K. Zalpuri CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 21

29 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shah Muhammad AIR 1969 SC 1234 23

30 T.K. Dingal v. State of West Bengal (2009) 1 SCC 768. 21

31 The Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. AIR 1981 SC 344 16

32 Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi & Anr 1969 1 SCC 110. 20

34 W. Proost and others vs. State of Bihar AIR 1969 SC 465 25

 Books, Treatises & Digests:

-MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER- Page 6 of 31 -Index of authorities-