167A

NHRC-GNLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 2019

Before,

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF OMBERLANDS

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

W.P. (C) No. 23/2019

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF OMBERLANDS

In the Matters of:

SOCIETY FOR THE WELFARE OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF AUROM………......…. PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF OMBERLANDS & STATE OF AUROM...........................…...................RESPONDENTS

TO HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF OMBERLANDS AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES

OF

THE SUPREME COURT OF OMBERLANDS

I
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................... II
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................... IV
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... V
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ........................................................................................... VIII
STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................... IX
ISSUES RAISED .......................................................................................................................... X
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................... XI
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ........................................................................................................... 1

I. THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF OMBERLANDS ................................................................................ 1
1.1 THE PETITIONER HAS LOCUS STANDI AND SUFFICIENT INTEREST. ............................. 1
1.2 THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW INVOLVED .......................................... 2
1.3 NO ALTERNATE AND EFFICACIOUS REMEDY IS AVAILABLE TO THE PETITIONER ........ 2
1.4 THE HON'BLE COURT IS A “SENTINEL ON THE QUI VIVE” ........................................... 3

II. THAT THE SECTION 6A OF THE OMBERLANDS CITIZENSHIP ACT IS

UNCONSTITUTIONAL ............................................................................................................. 4
2.1 THE IMPUGNED AMENDMENT VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 ................................................... 4
2.1.1 THAT THERE IS AN UNREASONABLE CLASSIFICATION........................................... 4
2.1.1.1 THAT THE CLASSIFICATION IS NOT BASED UPON INTELLIGIBLE DIFFERENTIA
.................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.1.2 THIS DIFFERENTIA DOES NOT HAVE A RATIONAL RELATION TO THE OBJECT
OF CLASSIFICATION .................................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 THAT THIS UNREASONABLE CLASSIFICATION VIOLATES ARTICLES 5 AND 6 ........ 6
2.2 THE IMPUGNED ACT VIOLATES ARTICLE 21 ................................................................. 6
2.2.1 THERE IS A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD AND RIGHT TO WORK ... 6
2.2.2. THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT ......................... 8
2.2.3. THAT THERE IS VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO PUBLIC SAFETY ................................... 8
2.3 THE IMPUGNED ACT VIOLATES ARTICLE 29(1) ............................................................ 8
2.4 THE IMPUGNED AMENDMENT IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 355 ...................................... 9

III. THAT THE AMENDMENT IN OMBERLANDS CITIZENSHIP ACT ON THE BASIS OF AN

AGREEMENT WAS INVALID ................................................................................................ 11

II
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 3.1 THE AGREEMENT VIOLATE THE RULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
AS SPECIFIED UNDER ARTICLE 77 .................................................................................... 11
3.2 THE AGREEMENT IS CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS .................... 11

IV. THE SECTION 3 OF THE OMBERLANDS CITIZENSHIP ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

13
4.1 THE SECTION 3 OF OMBERLANDS CITIZENSHIP ACT OPERATES THE CONCEPT OF JUS
SANGUINIS ........................................................................................................................ 13
4.2 THE SECTION 3 OF OMBERLANDS CITIZENSHIP ACT IGNORES THE OPERATION OF
CONCEPT OF JUS SANGUINIS IN OTHER COUNTRIES ......................................................... 13
4.3 THE SCECTION 3 OF OMBERLANDS CITIZENSHIP ACT IS IN CONTRADICTION OF SECTION
9 OF THE ACT ................................................................................................................... 14
4.4 THE SECTION 3 OF OMBERLANDS CITIZENSHIP ACT IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 ... 15

V. THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT OF 1999 ARE BINDING ON

REPUBLIC OF OMBERLANDS AND THE STATE OF AUROM AND THEY ARE LIABLE TO
PROVIDE COMPENSATION TO THE AURO PEOPLE FOR COMMITTING A BREACH THEREOF
16
5.1 THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT OF 1999 ARE BINDING ON REPUBLIC OF OMBERLANDS
AND THE STATE OF AUROM ............................................................................................. 16
5.2 THE BREACH OF THE AGREEMENT IS VIOALATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 ........................... 16
5.3 THE BREACH OF THE AGREEMENT IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 21 .............................. 17
5.4 THE GOVERNMENT IS LIABLE TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION TO THE AURO PEOPLE .. 18
PRAYER .................................................................................................................................... 19

III
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

¶ Paragraph

& And

Admn. Administration

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Article

Bom Bombay

CAL Calcutta

CERC Central Electricity Regulatory Commission

Co. Company

Const. Constitution

Corp. Corporation

CTO Commercial Tax Officer

ed. Edition

Hon’ble Honourable

i.e. That is

Ltd. Limited

Ors. Others

SC Supreme Court

SCALE Supreme Court Almanac

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reports

UOI Union of India

UPBLEC U. P. Local Bodies & Educational classes

Vs/ V/ V. Versus

IV
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES
• The Constitution of India, 1950
• Indian Citizenship Act, 1955

CASES

1. A.K. Bindal v. Union of India, (2003) 5 SCC 163.: AIR 1990 SC 1480. ----------- 6, 17
2. Assam Sanmilta Mahasangha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 1. ----- 3
3. B. Shantilal & Co. Bombay and Another v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1989 Bom 226.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5
4. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161: AIR 1984 SC 802. ---- 1
5. Banmari Amman Sugars Ltd v. Commercial Tax Officer, (2005) 1 SCC 625; Indian
Charge Chrome Limited v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 953 ---------------------------17
6. Bennett Oleman v. UOI, AIR 1973 SC 106. ------------------------------------------------11
7. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar R. Nandkarni, (1983) 1 SCC
124. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
8. Brij Mohan Lal v. UOI, AIR 2012 SC (Civil) 2196----------------------------------------11
9. Budhan Choudhry and Ors v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191; ------------------- 4
10. Centre for Environment and Food Security v. Union of India, (2011) 5 SCC 676. 6, 17
11. CERC v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42. --------------------------------------------- 6, 17
12. Chaitanaya Chara Das v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1995 Cal 336. --------------------16
13. Chiranjitlal Choudhari v. Union of India, 1950 SCR 869. --------------------------------15
14. CAG of India v. Kamlesh Vadilal Mehta, (2003) 2 SCC 349. ---------------------------- 6
15. Cummings v. Birkenhead Corpn., (1971) 2 All ER 881. ----------------------------------11
16. D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 SCC 378: AIR 1987 SC 579.----------------- 1
17. Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Admn., (1992) 4 SCC -- 6
18. Election Commission of India v. St. Mary's School, (2008) 2 SCC 390. ---------------- 7
19. Francis Coralie v. Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608. ------------------------------------------------- 6
20. H.S. Jain v. Union of India, (1997) 1 UPBLEC 594. --------------------------------------10
21. Hari Ram & Anr v. State of Haryana, Civil Appeal No. 5440 Of 2000. ----------------17
22. Home Secretary v. Darsjit, (1993) 3 SCC 499. ---------------------------------------------17
23. Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 98. ---- 3
V
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
24. Jagdev Singh Sidhhanti v. Pratap Singh Dulta, 1964 6 SCR 750: AIR 2005 SC 2920.9
25. Jaila Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1976) 1 SCC 602: AIR 1975 SC 1436 -------------- 5
26. Javed v. State of Haryana, (2003) 8 SCC 369: AIR 2003 SC 3057 ----------------------- 8
27. John Vallamattom v. Union of India, (2003) 6 SCC 611 ----------------------------------- 5
28. Jyoti Pershad v. Administrator for the Union Territory of Delhi, 1961 AIR 1602 ----12
29. K.K. Kouchunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725. ----------------------------------- 2
30. Kangshari Haldar v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1960 SC 457. --------------------------- 5
31. Karm Kumar vs Union of India & Ors on 3 August, 2010 --------------------------------14
32. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225: AIR 1973 SC 1461 ------ 4
33. Kumar Padma Prasad v. UOI, AIR 1992 SC 1213 -----------------------------------------11
34. M. Janardhan Rao v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (2005) 2 SCC 324. --------- 2
35. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212: AIR 2007 SC 71. -------------------- 4
36. M.G. Badappanavar v. State of Karnataka, (2001) 2 SCC 666. --------------------------- 4
37. Madhu Limaye v. Superintendent, Tihar Jail, Delhi, (1975) 1 SCC 525. ---------------- 5
38. Madras High Court in Thangarajan v. Union of India, AIR 1975 Mad 32. -------------18
39. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248: AIR 1978 SC 597. -------- 6, 17
40. Mohd. Abdul Kadir v. Director General of Police, (2009) 6 SCC 611. -----------------11
41. Mohini v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 3 SCC 666: AIR 1992 SC 1858. ------------------ 2
42. Municipal Corporation v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, AIR 2012 SC
100. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
43. Naraindas Indurkhya v State of MP, AIR 1974 SC 1232. ---------------------------------12
44. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180. ----------------- 6, 17
45. Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386: AIR 2000 SC 3689.------------------ 4
46. Polly J. Price, Stateless in the United States: Current Reality and a Future Prediction,
Vand. J. Transnat’; L. 443, 454 (2013). ------------------------------------------------------14
47. Premchand Somchand Shah v. Union of India, (1991) 2 SCC 48. -----------------------16
48. Rabindra Nath Ghosal v. College of Calcutta, (2002) 7 SCALE 137.-------------------18
49. Rama Rao, V.R.V Sree v. Telegudesam Political Party, AIR 1983 AP 96 1115; ------ 9
50. Rameshwar Prasad v. Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., (1999) 8
SCC 381. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17
51. Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124. ------------------------------------ 2
52. Rudal Shah v State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 141. --------------------------------------------18
53. S. Nalini Srikaran v. Union of India, (2007) 2 LW 232 (Mad). --------------------------15
54. S.P. Gupta v. President of India, 1981 supp SCC 87: AIR 1982 SC 149. --------------- 1
VI
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 55. S.R. Bommai v.Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918. --------------------------------------14
56. Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India & Anr, (2005) 5 SCC 665. ----------------- 9, 10
57. Sarbananda Sonowalv. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665: AIR 2005 SC 2920.------- 1
58. Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538; --------- 4
59. Sidhirajbhai Sabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1963 SC 540. ------------------------------- 9
60. State of Haryana v. Suraj, (2004) 12 SCC 538. ---------------------------------------------18
61. State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196. ------------------------------------------- 3
62. State Trading Corpn. Of India, Ltd. V. CTO, AIR 1963 SC 1811. ----------------------14
63. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481 ------------------------ 8
64. The State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad, (1974) 4 SCC
656: AIR 1974 SC 1300. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4
65. U.N.R. Rao v. Indira Gandhi, AIR 1971 SC 1002. ------------------------------------ 11, 12
66. UN General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples (2007). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
67. Union of India & Anr. vs. International Trading Co. & Anr., (2003) 5 SCC 437. ----16
68. Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645: AIR 1993 SC 2178. --- 7
69. Upendra Baxi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1986) 4 SCC 106: AIR 1987 SC 191. ------- 2
70. V.G. Ramchandran, Law of Writs, 26 (6th ed., 2006). ------------------------------------- 1

BOOKS REFERRED
• D.D. Basu, Shorter Constitution of India (Volume 1, 1st Edition: 2011)
• D.D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India: Articles 13 and 14
• H. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India (Volume1, 4th Edition: 2017)
• M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (8th Edition. 2018)
• Prof. Willis, Constitutional Law, (1 ed)

INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS REFERRED

• United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007
• United Nations Refugee Convention, 1951
• United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2009
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1976

*The Constitution of Omberlands and Omberlands Citizenship Act are pari- materia with
the Constitution of India and Indian Citizenship Act, 1955.
VII
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon'ble Court has Jurisdiction to hear the instant matter under Art. 32 of the Constitution
of Omberlands, 1950.

Art. 32 of the Constitution of Omberlands reads as:

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.

THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND ARGUMENTS IN THE
INSTANT CASE.

VIII
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Background: Republic of Omberlands is country which has some of the world’s oldest
civilizations. The state of Aurom in Omberlands is rich in natural resources and its western
border lies with a neighbouring country Mumbaria, whose most part is covered with river called
Nihel. Historically, Aurom was inhabited and ruled by Auro race people. They have their own
culture, language and custom, which they managed to preserve. After independence they
become a part of Omberlands. But Mumbaria was a colony of United Province of Batalian.
Mumbaria rebel group, who were protesting for a long time for independence.

Omberlands Accord: The rebel group used forces against Balian and in retaliation Balian
forces used heavy force which forced many Mumbarians to flee from their country. PM of
Omberlands assured them that Omberlands will provide food and shelter to them. Over the next
few months many Mumbarians entered illegally in the state of Aurom through the Nihel River.
Later they mingled with the Auro people, which made it very difficult to distinguish between
them. In Jan.1991, Omberlands helped Mumbaria to get independence. But after independence
also, Mumbaria continued to come in Aurom. They also made forged documents which proof
that they are the people of Omberlands.

Actions Taken: In Dec.1998, Auro Youth united, a group of college students of Aurom
protested against the Mumbarian illegal emigrants and alleged that government deliberately
not taking affective measures because of ensuring their support in election. Protestors claimed
that the illegal emigrants not affected the culture and the natural resources but also adversely
affected their access to natural resources opportunity of education and employment, law and
order, and the threat of minority in their own state. On 15th May 1999, PM of Omberlands
came into a tripartite agreement with the Auro Youth United and with the government of
Aurom. In this various agreement were made in benefit of the Auro People. An amendment in
the citizenship was made by which S. 6A was added, which states that People of Mumbaria
who came before 5th May, 1999 shall be deemed as citizen of Omberlands.

Present Petition: On Feb. 2019, a leading national magazine published a report in which
survey clearly mentioned that government has not fulfilled its promises made in the agreement
and the people of Aurom has come into minority. In April 2019, an association called as Society
for the welfare of Indigenous People of Aurom (SWIPA) filed a writ petition before the
Supreme Court Challenging some important issues.

Hence this Petition.

IX
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 ISSUES RAISED

-I-

WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE HON'BLE SUPREME

COURT OF OMBERLANDS?

-II-

WHETHER THE SECTION 6A OF THE OMBERLANDS CITIZENSHIP ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

-III-

WHETHER THE AMENDMENT IN OMBERLANDS CITIZENSHIP ACT ON THE BASIS OF AN

AGREEMENT IS VALID?

-IV-

WHETHER THE SECTION 3 OF THE OMBERLANDS CITIZENSHIP ACT IS CONSITUTIONAL?

-V-

WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT OF1999 ARE BINDING ON THE
REPUBLIC OF OMBERLANDS AND THE STATE OF AUROM AND THEY ARE LIABLE TO PROVIDE
COMPENSATION TO THE AURO PEOPLE FOR COMMITTING A BREACH THEREOF?

X
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the Public Interest Litigation is maintainable under Article 32 of the

Constitution of Omberlands?
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the present Writ petition is
maintainable because, it has requisite locus standi and interest in the present case and the
petition involves substantial questions of law. The question of law raised are the
constitutionality of Section 6A, Section 3 of the Omberlands Citizenship Act. There is no
alternative and efficacious remedy in the present case. Since the court is a “sentinel on the qui
vive”. The writ petition is maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of Omberlands.

2. Whether the section 6A of the Omberlands Citizenship Act is unconstitutional?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the section 6A is unconstitutional, as it is
inconsistent with Part III of the Constitution, when it comes to granting illegal immigrants’
citizenship. The Section 6A is violative of Article 14 as it involves unreasonable classification
of people and is hence violative of Article 5 and 6 of the Constitution. The Section 6A violates
the Article 21 of the Constitution of Omberlands with respect to Right to livelihood and work,
Right to Development and Right to Public Safety of the natives of State of Aurom. The Section
6A is violative of Article 29 enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, it is unconstitutional and
liable to be struck down. Moreover, influx of illegal migrants into a country amounts to external
aggression and internal disturbances. The impugned amendment is violative of article 355.

3. Whether the amendment in Omberlands Citizenship Act on the basis of an agreement

is valid?
It is most humbly submitted that the Citizenship amendment on the basis of an agreement is
unconstitutional. The Agreement violate the rules for the conduct of government business as
specified under article 77.The Agreement is contrary to constitutional provisions as the Union
of Omberlands has amended the Citizenship Act which grants citizenship to illegal immigrants
which is in violation of Right to Equality, also it went against the executive action by framing
laws against those matters for which the statutory provisions exist, namely reservation and
citizenship, Therefore, the agreement should be quashed.

XI
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
4. Whether the Section 3 of the Omberlands Citizenship Act is contitutional?
It is humbly submitted that the section 3 of the Omberlands Citizenship Act operates the
concept of Jus Sanguinis; and it ignore the operation of concept of Jus Sanguinis in other
countries. The presence of the concept of Jus Sangiunis for granting citizenship through descent
in other countries would invoke dual citizenship for an immigrant child, which is in violation
on the act itself. It is also contended that the Section 3 of Omberlands Citizenship Act is
violative of article 14. Therefore, the Section 3 of Omberlands Citizenship Act is
unconstitutional.

5. Whether the provisions of the Tripartite Agreement of 1999 are binding on Republic
of Omberlands and the State of Aurom and they are liable to provide compensation
agreement to the Auro people for committing a breach thereof?
It is most humbly submitted that the tripartite agreement of 1999 are binding on Republic of
Omberlands and the State of Aurom and its breach is vioaltive of article 14 as the individuals
of State of Aurom were awarded benefit of the scheme which was not later on provided to them
by the authorities There has been a curtailment of the right to life by the government, thereby
violation of article 21. The Government is liable to provide compensation to the Auro people.

XII
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF OMBERLANDS

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the present Writ petition is
maintainable because, it has requisite locus standi and interest in the present case [1.1] and the
petition involves substantial questions of law involved [1.2]. There is no alternative and
efficacious remedy in the present case. [1.3] Since the court is a “sentinel on the qui vive”.
[1.4]. The writ petition is maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of Omberlands1.

1.1 THE PETITIONER HAS LOCUS STANDI AND SUFFICIENT INTEREST.

It is most humbly submitted that this Hon'ble Court has held that a writ petition under Article
32 by a public-spirited person on behalf of a section of the society which complains of violation
of fundamental rights is maintainable.2

Society for the Welfare of Indigenous People of Aurom (hereinafter as ‘SWIPA’), a local body
having roots across State of Aurom3 has the requisite locus standi to approach this court in the
present matter. Locus Standi means the right to bring an action, to be heard in court, or to
address the court on a matter before it.4 In other words, the term "locus standi" can be
understood as legal capacity to challenge legislation, an order or a decision.5

In the case of Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India,6 this Hon'ble court had held that
legislation having the effect of giving shelter and protection to foreign nationals illegally
having entered and residing in India can be challenged by any citizen.

Furthermore, a petitioner will be deemed to have sufficient interest to maintain a petition under
Article 32 as a member of the public because it is the right of the public to be governed by laws
made in accordance with the Constitution and not laws made by the legislature in violation of
the constitutional provisions.7 It is submitted that the fundamental rights of the citizens of

1
The Constitution of Omberlands and Omberlands Citizenship Act are pari- materia with the Constitution of
India and Indian Citizenship Act, 1955.
2
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161: AIR 1984 SC 802.
3
¶ 11, Moot Proposition.
4
S.P. Gupta v. President of India, 1981 supp SCC 87: AIR 1982 SC 149.
5
V.G. Ramchandran, Law of Writs, 26 (6th ed., 2006).
6
Sarbananda Sonowalv. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665: AIR 2005 SC 2920.
7
D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 SCC 378: AIR 1987 SC 579.
1
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
Omberlands guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 29 have been infringed by the impugned
legislation.

In the instant case, it is observed that the petitioner, Society for the Welfare of Indigenous
People of Aurom has filed the aforesaid writ petition for the pro bono interest8 of the general
public and general welfare of the people of Aurom, and Omberlands in general.9 Therefore, in
light of this, each and every citizen of Omberlands has the right to question the same and
therefore, SWIPA by representing the people of Aurom and Omberlands, in general have the
requisite locus standi and public interest in the present case.

1.2 THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW INVOLVED

The facts and the circumstances of the case must disclose a substantial question of law for a
petition to be maintainable.10 In the present case, three substantial questions of law have been
framed to be decided by this Hon'ble Court11. Adjudication on these pertinent issues
necessitates the admission of the petition. The question of law raised are the constitutionality
of Section 6A, Section 3 of the Omberlands Citizenship Act.12

1.3 NO ALTERNATE AND EFFICACIOUS REMEDY IS AVAILABLE TO THE PETITIONER

It is humbly submitted that, approaching the Supreme Court under Article 32 for the protection
of fundamental rights is itself a fundamental right.13 It is unnecessary to first approach the High
Court and exhaust the remedy under Article 226 before approaching the Supreme Court.14
Hence, it was held before this Hon'ble court that mere existence of an adequate alternative legal
remedy cannot be per se be a good and sufficient ground for dismissing a petition under Article
32.15 By the reason of the above holdings, the present petition stands maintainable in the
absence of an alternate and efficacious remedy.

8
Upendra Baxi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1986) 4 SCC 106: AIR 1987 SC 191.
9
¶ 11, Moot Proposition.
10
M. Janardhan Rao v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (2005) 2 SCC 324.
11
Memorandum on behalf of the Petitioner.
12
¶ 11, Moot Proposition.
13
Mohini v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 3 SCC 666: AIR 1992 SC 1858.
14
Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124.
15
K.K. Kouchunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725.
2
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
1.4 THE HON'BLE COURT IS A “SENTINEL ON THE QUI VIVE”

This Hon'ble Court has repeatedly assumed the role of the “sentinel on the qui vive”16 to
enforce fundamental rights of the people. It is humbly submitted that in light of the prevailing
circumstances in Aurom, which are continuously depriving a large section of the native
population of their fundamental rights, the Court has the constitutional duty and obligation17 to
entertain this petition. The Right to Equality,18 the Right to Life and Personal Liberty,19 along
with the Right to preserve one’s culture are fundamental rights.20 It is the duty of the Courts to
examine the merits of each case with respect to the prevailing situation, looking at the
fundamental rights violations alleged, and make a decision in view of the changing notions of
life and personal liberty of humans.21

16
State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196.
17
Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 98.
18
INDIA CONST. art. 14.
19
INDIA CONST. art.21.
20
INDIA CONST. art. 29, § 1.
21
Assam Sanmilta Mahasangha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 1.
3
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 II. THAT THE SECTION 6A OF THE OMBERLANDS CITIZENSHIP ACT IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL

It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the section 6A is unconstitutional as it is
inconsistent with Part III of the Constitution. The impugned Section infringes Article 14 [2.1]
Article 21 [2.2] and Article 29(1) [2.3] enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. Article 13(2)
states “The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by
this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the
contravention, be void”.22 Therefore, as per Article 13(2) of the Constitution, the impugned
Act is void and liable to be struck down. In addition, influx of illegal migrants into a country
amounts to external aggression and internal disturbances. The impugned amendment is
violative of article 355 [2.4]

2.1 THE IMPUGNED AMENDMENT VIOLATES ARTICLE 14

It is humbly submitted that the Petitioner's right to equality under the law as per Article 14 of
the Constitution of Omberlands has been violated, by the classes created under the section 6A
of the Omberlands Citizenship Act. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures
fairness and equality of treatment.23 The principle of classification under Article 14 has been
the subject of deliberation in a catena of cases.24

2.1.1 THAT THERE IS AN UNREASONABLE CLASSIFICATION

Article 14 is based on the rule of law and equality before law.25 It is humbly submitted that the
right to equality is a basic feature of the Constitution,26 and the Parliament cannot transgress
the principle of equality.27 Therefore, no action of the State should be of an arbitrary and
irrational nature which distinguishes among individuals.28

While the State is permitted to exercise differentiation amongst certain individuals who are
differently situated, it must possess a rational nexus with the object of the enactment and an

22
INDIA CONST. art. 13, § 2.
23
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248: AIR 1978 SC 597.: AIR 1979 SC 1369.
24
Budhan Choudhry and Ors v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191; Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice
S.R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538; The State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad, (1974)
4 SCC 656: AIR 1974 SC 1300.
25
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212: AIR 2007 SC 71.
26
M.G. Badappanavar v. State of Karnataka, (2001) 2 SCC 666.
27
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225: AIR 1973 SC 1461.
28
Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386: AIR 2000 SC 3689.
4
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
intelligible differentia.29 This is called the Doctrine of Reasonable Classification. To attract
Article 14, it is necessary to show that the selection or differentiation is unreasonable or
arbitrary, and that it does not rest on any rational basis with regard to the object which the
Legislature has in view in making the law in question.30

2.1.1.1 THAT THE CLASSIFICATION IS NOT BASED UPON INTELLIGIBLE DIFFERENTIA

It is humbly submitted that the Section 6A of Omberlands Citizenship Act creates a

classification, which is unreasonable and thus fails to satisfy the Doctrine of Reasonable
Classification. The date used as a parameter for granting citizenship, 25th January 1991,31 is
making an unreasonable classification between illegal migrants based on the time period they
entered the territory. By virtue of this provision, illegal migrants entering Omberlands after the
specified date cannot even be given a chance to obtain citizenship under Section 5(1) or Section
6(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. In the case of Madhu Limaye v. Superintendent. Tihar Jail,
Delhi,32 differential treatment meted out to prisoners from different countries was held violative
of Article 14.

The impugned amendment grants citizenship only to illegal migrants entering the territory
before 25th January 1991, while not recognizing persons entering the territory after the specified
date from the neighbour country and have settled in Omberlands.33 Thus, the impugned Act
treats a class of persons differently based on the date they migrated into the territory. Such a
classification is violation of Article 14.34

2.1.1.2 THIS DIFFERENTIA DOES NOT HAVE A RATIONAL RELATION TO THE OBJECT OF
CLASSIFICATION

The definition being too wide suffers from the vice of over inclusion without having any nexus
to the object sought to be achieved by the amendment.35 If, apart from the person entering its
border due to persecution by the Balian forces, a large influx of immigration is because of the
attraction to resources is present,36 then the amendment suffers from the defect of over

29
Kangshari Haldar v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1960 SC 457.
30
Jaila Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1976) 1 SCC 602: AIR 1975 SC 1436.
31
¶ 9, Moot Proposition.
32
Madhu Limaye v. Superintendent, Tihar Jail, Delhi, (1975) 1 SCC 525.
33
¶ 9, Moot Proposition.
34
John Vallamattom v. Union of India, (2003) 6 SCC 611.
35
B. Shantilal & Co. Bombay and Another v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1989 Bom 226.
36
¶ 6, Moot Proposition.
5
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
inclusion.The illegal immigrants entering in the territory of Omberlands on any date before
25th January 1991, when there doesn’t exist any attacks by Balian forces are also considered
for granting the citizenship, their inclusion is unreasonable, irrational and arbitrary and violates
the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.

It is hence submitted that this is a clear case of classification within a class,37 which is arbitrary
and violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution.38

2.1.2 THAT THIS UNREASONABLE CLASSIFICATION VIOLATES ARTICLES 5 AND 6

A cumulative reading of Articles 5 and 6 of the Constitution reveals that the two Articles define
who a “citizen” is. However, the impugned creates a new class of “citizens” itself through the
aforementioned classifications. This goes beyond the scope and violates Articles 5 and 6.
Although it may be argued that this is permissible under the mandate of Article 11, it is humbly
submitted that the powers under Article 11 are not unfettered. It is no more res integra that
Parliaments cannot make laws against the constitutional mandate.

2.2 THE IMPUGNED ACT VIOLATES ARTICLE 21

According to Article 21, no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law.39 It is humbly submitted that the expression “life”
in Article 21 of the Constitution of Omberlands is used to mean something more than mere
animal existence.40 It is multi-faceted, including numerous strands such as the right to
livelihood,41 public safety, development, and a meaningful existence.42 If any statutory
provision runs counter to such a right, it must be held unconstitutional.43

2.2.1 THERE IS A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD AND RIGHT TO WORK

The Right to Life embraces within its fold, some of the finer facets of human civilization which
makes life worth living and that the expanded concept of life would mean the tradition, culture

37
Comptroller & Auditor General of India v. Kamlesh Vadilal Mehta, (2003) 2 SCC 349.
38
John Vallamattom v. Union of India, (2003) 6 SCC 611: AIR 2003 SC 1096.
39
INDIA CONST. art. 21.
40
A.K. Bindal v. Union of India, (2003) 5 SCC 163.: AIR 1990 SC 1480.
41
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545: AIR 1986 SC 180.
42
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248: AIR 1978 SC 597.
43
Francis Coralie v. Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608.
6
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
and heritage of the person concerned.44 The Right to Livelihood45 and Right to Work46 are an
integral part of the Right to Life and dignity of an individual.47 In the case of Board of Trustees
of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar R. Nandkarni,48 this court held that, “An equally important
facet of right to life is the right to livelihood because, no person can live without the means of
living, that is, the means of livelihood. If there is an obligation upon the state to secure to its
citizens an adequate means of livelihood and the right to work, it would be sheer pedantry to
exclude the right to life from the content of the right to life.49

The impugned Amendment grants citizenship to individuals from Mumbaria, who have
illegally entered Aurom. It is pertinent to note that the resources have turned scarce in Aurom
and the unabated influx of illegal immigrants which are granted citizenship by the impugned
amendment would deprive them of employment and livelihood in their own native land.50 Thus,
the influx of immigrants would lead to depletion of natural resources and the natives will have
to bear the brunt of unemployed. Therefore, this would violate the Right to Livelihood and the
Right to Work of the citizens of Omberlands, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

According to Article 38,51 it is the duty of the state to secure a social order for the promotion
of welfare of the people. According to Article 39(a),52 the citizens, men and women equally,
have the right to an adequate means to livelihood. Furthermore, Article 4153 of the Constitution
clearly states that the State shall make effective provision for securing the Right to Work for
the citizens of Omberlands. The impugned Amendment will therefore cause failure of the State
to perform its duty under Articles 38, 39 (a) and 41.

Since it is also the duty of Courts to honour the laudable objectives of the Directive Principles
of State Policy,54 it is humbly submitted that the right to livelihood and right to work as
guaranteed under the umbrella of Articles 21, 38, 39 (a) and 41 is being violated by the
impugned Act.

44
CERC v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42.
45
Centre for Environment and Food Security v. Union of India, (2011) 5 SCC 676.
46
Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Admn., (1992) 4 SCC 99.
47
Centre for Environment and Food Security v. Union of India, (2011) 5 SCC 676.
48
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar R. Nandkarni, (1983) 1 SCC 124.
49
Ibid.
50
¶ 6, Moot Proposition.
51
INDIA CONST. art. 38.
52
INDIA CONST. art. 39, § a.
53
INDIA CONST. art. 41.
54
Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645: AIR 1993 SC 2178.
7
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
2.2.2. THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Right to Development is a basic
human right.55 It includes a spectrum of civil, cultural, economic, political and social progress
for wellbeing and realization of peoples’ potential.56 The influx of immigrants violated the
Right to Development of the citizens.

It is contended that if the Act in question remains constitutional, it will mean that the aggregate
population of Aurom and Omberlands will substantially increase and the Government shall
have to spend even more on the well-being of migrants, which could rather have been used for
development purposes. Due to this, they shall also have lesser access to resources which were
meant exclusively for them.57 Therefore, the Act in question violates the Right to development.

2.2.3. THAT THERE IS VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO PUBLIC SAFETY

The main task of any legislation is to ensure public security.58 The illegal migration of people
from Mumbaria poses major challenges to Aurom in terms of life, property and employment
destruction. The immigration and protests began threatening national security and the
democratic fabric of Aurom.59

All in all, through a violation of these allied rights, the overall right of the citizens of
Omberlands to live a life with dignity is being violated, and thus there is a violation of Article
21. Thus, it is humbly contended that the Citizenship Amendment is unconstitutional.

2.3 THE IMPUGNED ACT VIOLATES ARTICLE 29(1)

According to Article 29(1) of the Constitution, any section of the citizens residing in the
territory of Omberlands or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its
own shall have the right to conserve the same.60 This constitutional provision therefore, protects
language, script or culture. It is pertinent to note that this section extends to ‘any section of
citizens’ whether they belong to the minority or majority community, the only condition being
that such section must have a distinct language, script or culture of its own.61

55
Election Commission of India v. St. Mary's School, (2008) 2 SCC 390.: 1983 SCR (1) 828.
56
D.D. Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, 393 (15th ed., 2018).
57
¶ 6, Moot Proposition.
58
Municipal Corporation v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, AIR 2012 SC 100.
59
¶ 7, Moot Proposition.
60
INDIA CONST. art. 29, § 1.
61
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481.
8
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
The entire state of Aurom has different language and cultural traits, making them a minority
under Article 29(1). The Citizenship Amendment Act grants citizenship to Mumbaria
individual who have migrated from the neighboring country. Their culture and language is also
distinct from the indigenous population of Aurom. Therefore, it ultimately poses a threat to the
unique culture possessed by the people of Aurom,62 which violates their inherent right to
conserve and foster their distinct culture.

This Hon'ble Court has held that residents of a state can object to illegal migration from a
neighbouring country if it has had an adverse impact on the language, script or culture of that
state.63 In Jagdev Singh Sidhhanti v. Pratap Singh Dulta,64 it was also held that the right to
conserve the language includes the right to agitate for the protection of that language. It is
pertinent to note that the right conferred by Clause (1) of Article 29 is an absolute right and
cannot be subjected to any reasonable restrictions.65 Further, the United Nations Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous People66 has emphasized the need to protect the rights of the
indigenous people that they derive from their political, economic and social structures and from
their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies. This also includes their rights to
land, territories and resources. Hence, it is the duty of the Government of Omberlands to protect
such rights of the indigenous people of Aurom which have been violated as a result of the
operation of the Citizenship Amendment.

This declaration also states that indigenous people have a right to live in freedom, peace and
security. It also goes on to posit that they should not be subjected to forced assimilation and
destruction of their culture.67 However, the incessant flow of illegal migrants into the State of
Aurom has disrupted the traditional socio fabric of the state and the rights of the indigenous
people.

2.4 THE IMPUGNED AMENDMENT IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 355

Article 355 of the Constitution of Omberlands cast a duty on the Union to protect States against
“external aggression” and “internal disturbance”. It shall hence be the duty of the Union to

62
¶2, Moot Proposition.
63
Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India & Anr, (2005) 5 SCC 665.
64
Jagdev Singh Sidhhanti v. Pratap Singh Dulta, 1964 6 SCR 750: AIR 2005 SC 2920.
65
Rama Rao, V.R.V Sree v. Telegudesam Political Party, AIR 1983 AP 96 1115; Sidhirajbhai Sabhai v. State of
Gujarat, AIR 1963 SC 540.
66
UN General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007).
67
¶ 7, Moot Proposition.
9
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
ensure that the government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of
this Constitution.68

It is pertinent to note that the word “aggression” mentioned in Article 355 has been construed
to be a word of every wide importance, not limited only to war but as comprising many other
acts which cannot be termed as war. A ‘bloodless aggression’ from a vast and incessant flow
of human beings forced to flee in another State, can also constitute aggression under Article
355.69 In the case of Sarbananda Sonowal v Union of India,70 the Supreme Court accepted the
view that large-scale influx of illegal migrants into a country amounts to external aggression
and internal disturbances.

In the present case, the influx of such a large number of illegal migrants from the neighbouring
countries is in fact an “aggression” on the State of Aurom and has also contributed significantly
in causing serious “internal disturbances”.71 Due to the impugned Amendment, there were riots
across the state and the law and order situation in Aurom has deteriorated rapidly. This form
of internal disturbance causes grave threat to the life of people. It therefore becomes the duty
of Union of Omberlands to take all measures for the protection of the State of Aurom from
such external aggression and internal disturbance as enjoined in Article 355 of the Constitution.

The Respondent may argue that Article 355 cannot be invoked independently and has to be
read together with Article 356. However, it is pertinent to note that in the case of H.S. Jain v.
Union of India,72 it was held by the Court that Article 355 of the Constitution can be invoked
independently. Thus, it is humbly contended that the Citizenship Amendment is
unconstitutional.

68
INDIA CONST. art. 355.
69
Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India & Anr, (2005) 5 SCC 665.
70
Ibid.
71
¶ 7, Moot Proposition.
72
H.S. Jain v. Union of India, (1997) 1 UPBLEC 594.
10
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 III. THAT THE AMENDMENT IN OMBERLANDS CITIZENSHIP ACT ON THE BASIS OF
AN AGREEMENT WAS INVALID

It is most humbly submitted that the Citizenship amendment on the basis of an agreement is
unconstitutional. The Agreement violate the rules for the conduct of government business as
specified under article 77 [3.1] and contrary to constitutional provisions [3.2]. Therefore, the
agreement should be quashed.

3.1 THE AGREEMENT VIOLATE THE RULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
AS SPECIFIED UNDER ARTICLE 77

It is humbly submitted that it is required by Article 77(1) all executive functions of the
government of India have to be expressed in the name of the President. If an appointment made
in the name of President if contrary to Constitutional provisions, it can be quashed. 73 In fact,
any exercise of executive power not in accordance with the Constitution will be liable to be set
aside by the court because under Art. 53(1), executive power of the Union was to be exercised
by the president only “in accordance with the constitution”.74

In the present case, the Prime Minister of Omberlands entered into the Tripartite Agreement
with the Government of Aurom and Auro Youth United.75 It highlights that the agreement has
not been expressed in the name of the President. It is contrary to constitutional provisions and
it can be quashed.

3.2 THE AGREEMENT IS CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

It is humbly submitted that State may formulate or re-formulate its policies to attain its
obligation of governance or to achieve its object, but the freedom so granted is subject to the
basic constitutional limitation and it is not so absolute to its terms that it would permit even
arbitrary action.76

Furthermore, even a policy decision is not totally immune from judicial review. If a policy
comes in conflict with fundamental rights77 or there is abuse of power in framing it or applying
a policy, courts do come into picture. The Government cannot formulate an unreasonable or

73
Kumar Padma Prasad v. UOI, AIR 1992 SC 1213.
74
U.N.R. Rao v. Indira Gandhi, AIR 1971 SC 1002.
75
¶ 8, Moot Proposition.
76
Brij Mohan Lal v. UOI, AIR 2012 SC (Civil) 2196; Mohd. Abdul Kadir v. Director General of Police, (2009)
6 SCC 611.
77
Bennett Oleman v. UOI, AIR 1973 SC 106.
11
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
discriminative policy or apply a policy in an unreasonable manner,78 arbitrarily and in a mala
fide manner.

It is also contended that, in most cases, private rights of persons, property or business are
affected by the implementation of proposed policies formulated by the executive, and so it
becomes inevitable to seek necessary statutory powers for the purpose of executing and
effectuating these policies.79 If the executive action taken by the State Government encroaches
on any private rights, it would have to be supported by legislative authority, for under the rule
of law which prevails in our country every executive action which operates to the prejudice of
any person must have the authority of law to support it.80 In the present case, the Union of
Omberlands has amended the Citizenship Act81 which grants citizenship to illegal immigrants
which is in violation of Right to Equality as the basis of classification was unreasonable.

Every State action must be guided by certain norms and standards which are in themselves not
objectionable as being discriminatory in character. If power conferred by statute on any
authority of the State is vagrant and unconfined and no standards or principles are laid down
by the statute to guide and control the exercise of such power, the statute would be violative of
the equality clause, because it would permit arbitrary and capricious exercise of power, which
is the anti-thesis of equality before law.82 In the present case, the government has not succeeded
in employing standard principles to execute the provisions of the agreement.83

In the present case, the tripartite agreement creates a provision for the amendment in citizenship
which itself is violative of constitutional provisions.84 It tends to withhold the right to life of
the illegal migrants by determining and deporting them. Furthermore, it went against the
executive action by framing laws against those matters for which the statutory provisions exist,
namely reservation85 and citizenship. Therefore, it is submitted that the exercise of executive
power is not in accordance with the Constitution and will be liable to be set aside by the court
because under Art. 53(1), executive power of the Union was to be exercised by the president
only “in accordance with the constitution”.86

78
Cummings v. Birkenhead Corpn., (1971) 2 All ER 881.
79
Durga Das Basu, Constitutional Law of India 133(1991).
80
Naraindas Indurkhya v State of MP, AIR 1974 SC 1232.
81
¶ 9, Moot Proposition.
82
Jyoti Pershad v. Administrator for the Union Territory of Delhi, 1961 AIR 1602, 1962 SCR (2) 125.
83
¶ 10, Moot Proposition.
84
Memorial on behalf of the Petitioner.
85
¶ 8, Moot Proposition..
86
U.N.R. Rao v. Indira Gandhi, AIR 1971 SC 1002.
12
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 IV. THE SECTION 3 OF THE OMBERLANDS CITIZENSHIP ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

It is humbly submitted that the section 3 of the Omberlands Citizenship Act operates the
concept of Jus Sanguinis [4.1]; and it ignore the operation of concept of Jus Sanguinis in other
countries [4.2]. The presence of the concept of Jus Sangiunis for granting citizenship through
descent in other countries would invoke dual citizenship for an immigrant child, which is in
violation on the act itself [4.3]. It is also contended that the section 3 of Omberlands Citizenship
Act is violative of article 14 [4.4].

4.1 THE SECTION 3 OF OMBERLANDS CITIZENSHIP ACT OPERATES THE CONCEPT OF JUS
SANGUINIS

It is humbly submitted that the Section 3 of the Omberlands Citizenship Act states as:
“Citizenship by birth- Any person born in Omberlands, either of whose parents is a citizen of
Omberlands at the time of his/her birth, shall be a citizen of Omberlands by birth.”87 It defines
birth right citizenship. The context of the 1986 amendment can be gleaned from the Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 1985 and the factors responsible for it.88 A perusal of the statement of objects
and reasons of the 1986 amendment reveals that one of its stated objectives was “preventing
automatic acquisition of citizenship of India by birth”.89 In addition to being born in the
territory of India, a person should also have some nexus with the territory through descent, i.e.,
either of his or her parents should be Indian citizens when he or she was born.90

In the present case, the Union of Omberlands is granting citizenship to the children even if one
parent is an illegal immigrant, the requirement being here is either parent should be a citizen
of Omberlands91 which will lead to difficulties parentage.

4.2 THE SECTION 3 OF OMBERLANDS CITIZENSHIP ACT IGNORES THE OPERATION OF

CONCEPT OF JUS SANGUINIS IN OTHER COUNTRIES

It is humbly submitted that the section 3 of Omberlands Citizenship Act ignores the operation
of concept of Jus Sanginis in other countries. The right to nationality is founded on the
existence of a genuine and effective link between an individual and a State. Such link,
manifested by birth, descent, and/or residency, is reflected in the provisions of many States’

87
¶ 11, Moot Proposition.
88
Report On Citizenship Law:India, RSCAS/GLOBALCIT-CR 2017/12.
89
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1986, Statement of Objects and Reasons.
90
Report On Citizenship Law: India, RSCAS/GLOBALCIT-CR 2017/12.
91
¶ 11, Moot Proposition.
13
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
nationality legislation.92 Automatic acquisition refers to nationality that is automatically
acquired at birth, based on jus sanguinis (i.e. birth to a national) or jus soli (i.e. birth on the
territory). Automatic modes are those where a change in nationality status takes place by
operation of law (ex lege).

‘Nationality’ has reference to the jural relationship which may arise for consideration under
international law. On the other hand, 'citizenship' has reference to the jural relationship under
municipal law.93 In other words, nationality determines the civil rights of a person, natural or
artificial particularly with reference to international law, whereas citizenship is intimately
connected with civic rights under municipal law. Hence all citizens are nationals of a particular
State but all nationals may not be citizens of the State.94

Contending that the Union of Omberlands must possess respect for the laws of citizenship of
other countries and to maintain honourable relations between nations as obligated under the
Article 51 of the Constitution.95 If one parent of a child may be an illegal migrant, such a child
is deprived of right to automatically acquire the nationality through the other parent (whether
by birth or by descent).

4.3 THE SCECTION 3 OF OMBERLANDS CITIZENSHIP ACT IS IN CONTRADICTION OF

SECTION 9 OF THE ACT

It is most humbly submitted that the Constitution of India, Article 5, does not recognise the
concept of dual citizenship. Article 9 makes it clear that if any person voluntarily acquires the
citizenship of any foreign country, he will cease to be a citizen of India.96 The concept of
citizenship assumes some importance in a federation because in a country which recognises
dual citizenship, the individual would owe allegiance both to the Federal Government as well
as the State Government but a country recognising a single citizenship does not face
complications arising from dual citizenship and by necessary implication negatives the concept
of State sovereignty.97

It is humbly submitted that Section 8 of Citizenship Act, 1955 enables a person with dual
nationality to renounce citizenship. The mode of doing so is by a declaration which is registered

92
Polly J. Price, Stateless in the United States: Current Reality and a Future Prediction, Vand. J. Transnat’; L.
443, 454 (2013).
93
Karm Kumar vs Union of India & Ors on 3 August, 2010.
94
State Trading Corpn. Of India, Ltd. V. CTO, AIR 1963 SC 1811.
95
INDIA CONST. art. 51.
96
INDIA CONST. art. 9.
97
S.R. Bommai v.Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918.
14
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
by the prescribed authority. Section 9 deals with another situation in which there is a
renunciation of citizenship. The principle underlying the Section is that whatever be the case
with dual nationality which a person might have owing to the operation of law, every citizen
of India shall elect either to retain that citizenship or to expatriate himself, and that once he so
elects, he cannot claim to retain Indian citizenship and profess a dual allegiance. 98 The
provision of section 9 remain ambiguous on the point of acquiring the citizenship.

Therefore, the application of Section 3 will lead to contravention of the Citizenship Act itself.

4.4 THE SECTION 3 OF OMBERLANDS CITIZENSHIP ACT IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14

It is humbly submitted that though very few laws can claim to be universal in nature, still they
are expected to be general. A law applying to one person or one class of persons is
unconstitutional, if there is no sufficient basis for it.99 It is contended that the act creates class
on the basis of acquisition of citizenship in other country leading to termination of citizenship
henceforth. The divisions arising would be on the basis of the operating doctrine of citizenship
in the state of the other parent. Therefore, it will be an infringement of article 14 of the
constitution.100 Hence, the Section 3 of the Omberlands Citizenship Act is unconstitutional.

98
S. Nalini Srikaran v. Union of India, (2007) 2 LW 232 (Mad).
99
Prof. Willis, Constitutional Law, 1 ed, 579.
100
Chiranjitlal Choudhari v. Union of India, 1950 SCR 869.
15
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 V. THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT OF 1999 ARE BINDING
ON REPUBLIC OF OMBERLANDS AND THE STATE OF AUROM AND THEY ARE
LIABLE TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION TO THE AURO PEOPLE FOR COMMITTING
A BREACH THEREOF

It is most humbly submitted that the tripartite agreement of 1999 are binding on Republic of
Omberlands and the State of Aurom [5.1] and its breach is vioaltive of article 14 [5.2] and
article 21 [5.3]. The Government is liable to provide compensation to the Auro people [5.4].

5.1 THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT OF 1999 ARE BINDING ON REPUBLIC OF OMBERLANDS

AND THE STATE OF AUROM

It is humbly submitted that where a scheme is framed under Article 73, a person claiming
benefit of the scheme would have the legal right to get it enforced, which was denied to him
by authorities.101 Once a policy is settled, Government is bound to follow it.102 In the present
case the union of Omberlands has framed the policy in the continuation of the aforementioned
agreement.103 The individuals of State of Aurom were awarded benefit of the scheme which
was not later on provided to them by the authorities as can be inferred from the report published
in the national magazine.104

The preamble to the Constitution of India, in the promise held out therein, secures justice to all
citizens ahead of liberty and equality. Apart from the preamble the constitutional vision of
justice is embodied in Article 38(1) of the Constitution: “State to secure a social order for the
promotion of welfare of the people. -- (1) The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the
people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social,
economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life.”105

5.2 THE BREACH OF THE AGREEMENT IS VIOALATIVE OF ARTICLE 14

It is humbly submitted that in terms of Article 14, a change in policy must be made fairly and
should not give an impression that it was done arbitrarily or by an ulterior motive.106 When a
particular mode is prescribed for doing an act and there is no impediment in adopting that

101
Chaitanaya Chara Das v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1995 Cal 336.
102
Premchand Somchand Shah v. Union of India, (1991) 2 SCC 48.
103
¶ 8, Moot Proposition.
104
¶ 10, Moot Proposition.
105
INDIA CONST. art. 38, § 1.
106
Union of India & Anr. vs. International Trading Co. & Anr., (2003) 5 SCC 437.
16
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
procedure, the deviation to act in different manner which does not disclose any discernible
principle which is reasonable itself shall be labelled as arbitrary. 107

Every state action must be informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reason
is per se arbitrary.108 In the present case the Union of Omberlands has not provided the benefit
as assured under the agreement to the citizen of Aurom. The government has not even provided
with any reason for the inefficiency109. Once a policy decision has been taken, denial of benefit
must be for a justifiable reason, otherwise it will be termed as arbitrary and violative of Article
14.110

5.3 THE BREACH OF THE AGREEMENT IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 21

It is humbly submitted that the expression “life” in Article 21 of the Constitution of Omberlands
is used to mean something more than mere animal existence.111 It is multi-faceted, including
numerous strands such as the right to livelihood,112 public safety, development, and a
meaningful existence.113

The Right to Life embraces within its fold, some of the finer facets of human civilization which
makes life worth living and that the expanded concept of life would mean the tradition, culture
and heritage of the person concerned.114 The Right to Livelihood115 and Right to Work116 are
an integral part of the Right to Life and dignity of an individual.117

In the present case, the government bound by the provisions of the agreement has failed to
provide the rights as enshrined in the agreement. There has been a curtailment of the right to
life by the government, therefore the breach of agreement is violative of Article 21.

107
Hari Ram & Anr v. State of Haryana, Civil Appeal No. 5440 Of 2000.
108
Banmari Amman Sugars Ltd v. Commercial Tax Officer, (2005) 1 SCC 625; Indian Charge Chrome Limited
v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 953.
109
¶ 10, Moot Proposition.
110
Rameshwar Prasad v. Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., (1999) 8 SCC 381.
111
A.K. Bindal v. Union of India, (2003) 5 SCC 163.: AIR 1990 SC 1480.
112
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545: AIR 1986 SC 180.
113
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248: AIR 1978 SC 597.
114
CERC v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42.
115
Centre for Environment and Food Security v. Union of India, (2011) 5 SCC 676.
116
Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Admn., (1992) 4 SCC 99.
117
Centre for Environment and Food Security v. Union of India, (2011) 5 SCC 676.
17
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
5.4 THE GOVERNMENT IS LIABLE TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION TO THE AURO PEOPLE

It is humbly submitted that having emaciated a policy of general application, and having
communicated to all concerned the administration is bound by it.118 But, it is settled that the
policy may be changed subject to procedural limitations, but until that is done, the
administration is bound by it.119 A change in policy by itself does not vitiate the action taken
pursuant thereto, if the changed policy is rational and reasonable.120

It is humbly submitted that in 1975, a judgment by Madras High Court in Thangarajan v. Union
of India121, maybe offered route to the idea that compensation can likewise be conceded under
the Article 32 of the Constitution. The cure under Article 32 was principally used to keep the
infringement of Fundamental Rights as it were.122 The Case of Rudal Shah123 was the principal
instance of its kind, when the Supreme Court of India conceded pay under general society law
of the nation. The instance of Rudal Shah was the achievement case for understanding that
remuneration can likewise be conceded under Article 32 of the Constitution. As indicated by
the Court, the ‘Compensation’ was in the way of a palliative, keeping in mind the end goal to
give a superior intending to one side to life ensured under Article 21.124

Therefore, the power and jurisdiction of Supreme Court and the High Courts to grant monetary
compensation in exercise of its jurisdiction respectively under Articles 32 and 226 of the
Constitution of Omberlands to a victim whose fundamental rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution are infringed are thus, well established.125

118
Home Secretary v. Darsjit, (1993) 3 SCC 499.
119
State of Haryana v. Suraj, (2004) 12 SCC 538.
120
Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corpn., (1993) 3 SCC 499.
121
Madras High Court in Thangarajan v. Union of India, AIR 1975 Mad 32.
122
Ibid.
123
Rudal Shah v State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 141.
124
Ibid.
125
Rabindra Nath Ghosal v. College of Calcutta, (2002) 7 SCALE 137.
18
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the arguments advanced and authorities citied, the Petitioner humbly
submit that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. The writ petition is maintainable under the Article 32 of the Constitution of

Omberlands.

2. The Section 6A of the Omberlands Citizenship Act is unconstitutional.

3. The Amendment in Omberland Citizenship Act on the basis of an agreement is not

valid.

4. The section 3 of the Omberlands citizenship act is unconstitutional.

5. The provisions of the tripartite agreement of 1999 are binding on republic of

Omberlands and the state of Aurom and they are liable to provide compensation to the
Auro people for committing a breach thereof.

AND

That the court may issue any other order as the court deems fit in the interest of justice, equity
and good conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall be duty bound forever.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

S/D-

19
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER