167R

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|Page

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- II

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ IV
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION --------------------------------------------------------------------- VIII
STATEMENT OF FACTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IX
ISSUES RAISED -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- XI
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

I. THAT THE WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE HON'BLE COURT ------- 1
1.1 THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS -------------------------------------- 1
1.2 THE PETITIONER HAS NOT EXHAUSTED ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES ----------------------- 3

II. THAT THE SECTION 6A OF THE OMBERLANDS CITIZENSHIP ACT IS NOT

UNCONSTITUTIONAL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
2.1 THE IMPUGNED ACT DOES NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 14 ------------------------------------- 4
2.1.1 THE IMPUGNED AMENDMENT PASSES THE TWIN TEST OF REASONABLENESS ---- 4
2.1.1.1 THE IMPUGNED ACT IS BASED ON INTELLIGIBLE DIFFERENTIA ---------------- 5
2.1.1.2 THE DIFFERENTIA ADOPTED AS THE BASIS OF CLASSIFICATION HAS A
RATIONAL NEXUS WITH THE OBJECT SOUGHT TO BE ACHIEVED ---------------------- 6
2.2. THE IMPUGNED ACT IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 21 ---------------------------------- 6
2.2.1 THERE IS NO OVERT ACT DEPRIVING THE PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO LIFE. --------- 6
2.2.2 THE IMMIGRANTS POSSESS THE ACCRUED RIGHT TO LIFE --------------------------- 7
2.3 THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT SATISFY THE RULE OF GOLDEN TRIANGLE -------------- 8
2.4 THE IMPUGNED ACT DOES NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 29 ------------------------------------- 8
2.4.1 THE NATIVES OF STATE OF AUROM ARE NOT A 'MINORITY' UNDER ARTICLE
29(1). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
2.4.2 THERE IS NO OBLIGATION ON THE STATE TO PROTECT MINORITIES --------------- 9
2.5 THE SAID IMMIGRANTS ENJOY PROTECTION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW------------- 9

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

AGREEMENT WAS VALID ----------------------------------------------------------------------------11
3.1 THE AGREEMENT IS NOT BEYOND THE EXTENT AND JURISDICTION OF EXECUTIVE
POWERS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11
3.2 THE AGREEMENT IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ---------------12

II
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 3.3 THE MATTER OF CITIZENSHIP COMES UNDER THE UNION LIST OF OMBERLANDS ---12
3.4 THE PARLIAMENT IS VESTED WITH POWER TO AMEND AND FORMULATE LAWS
RELATING TO CITIZENSHIP ------------------------------------------------------------------------13
3.5 THAT THE PARLIAMENT FOLLOWED DUE PROCEDURE ------------------------------------13

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

CONSTITUTIONAL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14
4.1 THE SECTION 3 OF OMBERLANDS CITIZENSHIP ACT OPERATES ON THE CONCEPT OF
JUS SANGUINIS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14
4.2 THE SECTION 3 OF OMBERLANDS CITIZENSHIP ACT UPHOLD THE ARTICLE 21 -------15
4.3 THE ICCPR PROVIDES FOR A RIGHT TO ACQUIRE A NATIONALITY----------------------16

V. THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT OF 1999 ARE NOT

BINDING ON REPUBLIC OF OMBERLANDS AND THE STATE OF AUROM AND THEY ARE
NOT LIABLE TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION TO THE AURO PEOPLE FOR COMMITTING A
BREACH THEREOF ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17
5.1 THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT IS NOT BINDING ON UNION OF OMBERLANDS AND THE
STATE OF AUROM ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------17
5.2 THE BREACH IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 21 ------------------------------------------17
5.3 THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT LIABLE TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION TO THE AURO PEOPLE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18
PRAYER --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19

III
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

¶ / Para Paragraph

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Article

Assn. Association

Commr. Commissioner

ed. Edition

Govt. Government

Hon’ble Honourable

i.e. That is

International Covenant on Civil and

ICCPR
Political Rights

IT Income Tax

KB King’s Bench

Ltd. Limited

Ors. Others

Re In the matter of

SC Supreme Court

SCALE Supreme Court Almanac

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Sess. Session

UNHRC United Nations Human Rights Council

UOI Union of India

Vs/ V/ V. Versus

IV
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 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. ---------------17
2. Abhudhya Sanstha v. Union of India, (2011) 6 SCC 145. --------------------------------- 2
3. Akil Bharat Goseva Sangh v. State of A.P., (2006) 4 SCC 162. -------------------------17
4. Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. (1995) 5 SCC 173: -----------------------------------12
5. Arunachal Pradesh v. Khudiram Chakma, AIR 1994 SC 1461. --------------------------- 1
6. Ashutish Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 34.----------------------------------- 5
7. Assam Sanmilitia Mahasangh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 1 -- 1
8. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar R. Nandkami, (1983) 1 SCC
124. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
9. Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1996) 2 SCC 549. ----------------------------- 8
10. Chiranjeet Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41. ----------------------------------------- 4
11. Confederation of All Nagaland State Services Employees' Assn. v. State of Nagaland,
(2006) 1 SCC 496. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
12. D.A.V. College, Jalandhar v. State of Punjab,AIR 1971 SC 1731; ----------------------- 9
13. Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 114; --------------------------------- 2
14. Dwarkadas v. Sholapur Mills, AIR 1954 SC 119. ------------------------------------------- 7
15. Ekta Shakti Foundation v. Govt of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2006 SC 2609. ----------------17
16. Faridabad CT. scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services, (1997) 7 SCC 752. ---------------- 4
17. Francis Coralie v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608. ------- 7
18. G Sundarajan v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 620. ---------------------------------------10
19. G.K. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 375. -------------------------------- 4
20. Genovese v. Malta, Application no. 53124/09, 11 October 2011. -----------------------15
21. Gita Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, (1999) 2 SCC 228: AIR 1999 SC 1149. ---- 4
22. GNR Rao v Indira Gandhi, AIR 1971 SC 2002: (1971). ----------------------------------12
23. Gopi Chand v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1959 SC 609. ---------------------------------- 5
24. In Re Kerala Education Bill v. Unknown, AIR 1958 SC 956.------------------------ 9, 10
25. In re Special Courts Bill, 1978 v. Unknown, (1979) 1 SCC 380. ------------------------- 6

V
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
26. Issac Isangha Musumba v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 15 SCC 357. ------------------ 7
27. Izhar Ahmad v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1052. --------------------------------------12
28. Jagdev Singh Sidhanti v. Pratap Singh Daulta, AIR 1965 SC 183. ----------------------- 8
29. Jagdish Pandey v. Chancellor, Bihar University, AIR 1968 SC 353. -------------------- 5
30. Jalia Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1976) 1 SCC 602. --------------------------------------- 6
31. K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481; -------------------------------------------------- 2
32. K.S. Puttuswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1. ------------------------------------- 6
33. Kangshari Haldar v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1960 SC 457. --------------------------- 5
34. Karassev v. Finland, Application no. 31414/96, --------------------------------------------15
35. Karm Kumar v. Union of India & Ors, (2010) 172 DLT 521. ----------------------------14
36. Labassee c. France , Requête no 65941/11, Council of Europe: European Court of
Human Rights, 2014. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------15
37. Laxmi Khandsari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1981) 2 SCC 600. ----------------------- 4, 5
38. Louis De Raedt v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 554. ------------------------------------- 6
39. Madras High Court in Thangarajan v. Union of India, AIR 1975 Mad 32. -------------18
40. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248. -------------------------------- 8, 13
41. Mennesson c. France, Requête no 65192/11, Council of Europe: European Court of
Human Rights, 2014. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------15
42. Minerva Mills Limited v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 591. ---------------------------- 7
43. Mohd. Javed v. Union of India, SCC OnLine Del 8741. ----------------------------------16
44. Naresh v. State of Maharashtra, 1966 3 SCR 744. ------------------------------------------ 7
45. Natural Resources Allocations, In Re Special Reference No. 1 of 2012 ----------------- 4
46. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545: AIR 1986 SC 180.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17
47. Peoples' Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301: AIR 1997 SC
568. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
48. People's Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 433. ---------------10
49. R. v. Kensington IT Commissioner, (1917) 1 KB 486; ------------------------------------- 2
50. Rabindra Nath Ghosal v. College of Calcutta, (2002) 7 SCALE 137.-------------------18
51. Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 84.----------------------------------- 1
52. Ram Jawaya Kapur v State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549. --------------------------------11
53. Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana, AIR 1950 SC 163.------------------------- 3
54. Rudal Shah v State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 141. --------------------------------------------18
55. Salil Bali v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 705. --------------------------------------------10
VI
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 56. Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 8 SCC 191: AIR 1997 SC 3297. --------- 7
57. Sarbhananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665. ----------------------------- 7
58. Shantisar Builders v. Narayan Khimlal Totame, AIR 1990 SC 630. --------------------- 8
59. Sidrajbhai Sabhai v. Syaye of Gujarat, AIR 1963 SC 540. -------------------------------- 8
60. St. Xavier's College v. State of Gujarat, (1974) 1 SCC 717: AIR 1974 SC 1389. ------ 9
61. State of Bombay v. R.M.D.C., AIR 1958 SC 699. ------------------------------------------ 7
62. State of U.P. v. Shah Md., AIR 1969 SC 1234. ---------------------------------------------13
63. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75. ----------------------------- 6
64. State Trading Corpn. of India, Ltd. v. CTO, AIR 1963 SC 1811.------------------------14
65. Subjeet Paul v. State of U.P., AIR 1996 All 214. ------------------------------------------12
66. Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India, (2008) 2 SCC 326; --------------------------------- 2
67. Suresh Chandra Chimanlal Shah v. Union of India, AIR 1975 Delhi 168. ----------- 9
68. Swaroop Vegetables Products Industries v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1983) 4 SCC 24. 5
69. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Kerala, (2002) 8 SCC 481 : AIR 2003 SC 355. --- 4
70. The State Of West Bengal vs Anwar All Sarkarhabib, 1952 SCR 284. ------------------ 4
71. Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, (1969) 1 SCC 110.------------------------------- 1
72. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647. ----------------10
73. Vincent v. Union of India, (1987) 2 SCC 165: AIR 1987 SC 990.: AIR 1983 SC 109.8
74. Wazir Chand v. State of H.P., AIR 1954 SC 415: (1955) 1 SCR 408. ------------------12

BOOKS REFERRED
• D.D. Basu, Shorter Constitution of India (Volume 1, 1st Edition: 2011)
• D.D. Basu, Shorter Constitution of India (Volume 2, 1st edition: 2011)
• H. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India (Volume1, 4th Edition: 2017)
• M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (8th Edition. 2018)

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 RESPONDENTS
 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 RESPONDENTS
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Background: Omberlands is the 3rd largest country in terms of area and the 4th fastest growing
economy. The state of Aurom is rich in natural resources and the largest river, Nihel flows
through it. Historically, Nihel was used for trade & commerce between the local people.
However, Aurom maintained their culture, which culturally distinguish them from in and
around people of Omberlands after being invaded and colonized and also after the instances of
marriage between Auro and Mumbarian peoples. Auro, after independence voluntarily decided
to be a part of Omberlands.

Omberlands Accord: Mumbaria got independence after 15 years on 25th Jan. 1999 from the
province of Balian, who committed several grave human rights violations. By this over millions
of refugees were given shelter on the Omberlands. Later it became difficult to distinguish them.
Although refugee camp was made but they mingled with the local people. Omberlands
discussed with other nations regarding the prevention of the massive human rights violation
and to enable the Mumabarians to return their homes.

Protest: In Dec. 1998, Auro Youth United, registered college association began to protest
towards the illegal emigrants. Thus, a tripartite agreement was made by the PM of Omberlands
with the government of Aurom and with Auro Youth United. In which various settlements were
made. And within a week on 23rd May, 1999 an amendment was made in the citizenship act
where a section 6A was added which states that People of Mumbaria who came before 15th
May 1999 shall be deemed as the citizen of Omberlands.

Present Petition: On Feb. 2019, a magazine reported that Auro People have not received any
benefits. In the same report it was states the reasons that People who were detected but not
deported because they don’t contain any valid proof. In April 2019, an unregistered 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 RESPONDENTS
 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 VALID?

-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 RESPONDENTS
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable under the Article 32 of the Constitution of
Omberlands
It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the present petition filed before
the bench is not maintainable on the grounds there is no infringement of Fundamental Rights
contrary to the claims of the petitioners. The settlement of disputes with regard to foreigners is
a matter of policy, such policy does not violate a statute or the constitution The said
Amendment plainly redress the problems faced by the individuals from Mumbaria. The
Petitioner has not exhausted Alternative Remedies. Therefore, the writ petition is not
maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of Omberlands.

2. Whether the section 6A of the Omberlands citizenship act is unconstitutional?

It is most humbly submitted that the Section 6A of the Omberlands citizenship Act is wholly
constitutional. The impugned section does not violate the Article 14, as it passes the test of
reasonability which includes that the impunged section is based on intelligible differentia and
there is a rational nexus with the objective sought. Moreover, the section is not violative of
Article 21 as there is no overt act of depriving the natives of Aurom the immigrants have
accrued Right to life. The section is in consonance with Article 29 as the natives Aurom cannot
be called minorities also there is no obligation on the state to protect the minorities.
Furthermore, the said immigrants enjoy protection under international law. The Section 6A of
Omberlands is Constitutional.

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 is wholly constitutional. The
Agreement does not violate the extent and jurisdiction of executive power or constitutional
provisions. The amendement in the Omberlands Citizenship Act was done under the executive
power of the Union of Omberlands as its primacy extends over to the matters of external affairs
and citizenship as well. The Union of Omberlands has amended the citizenship act in the
exercise of the executive powers to make it in consonance with and to render its obligation to
the tripartite agreement between State of Aurom, and Auro Youth United. Further,the power
to amend and formulate laws relating to citizenship is given under article 11 of the Constitution
of Omberlands. Thus the amendment on the basis of agreement is valid.

XI
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
4. Whether the section 3 of the Omberlands Citizenship Act is constitutional?
It is humbly submitted that the section 3 of the Omberlands Citizenship Act operates on the
concept of Jus Sanguinis and is in consonance of article 21. The Section 3 of Omberlands
Citizenship Act upholds Right to Private Life of the children born in the territory of
Omberlands. This Section is necessary to secure their social identity, liberty and right to
identity, securing their parentage. thereby, upholds the Article 21 of the Constitution. Every
child has the right to acquire a nationality. The ICCPR and other international obligations
provides for a Right to acquire a nationality. Therefore, the Section 3 of the Omberlands Act
is constitutional.

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 is not binding on Republic of
Omberlands and the State of Aurom. The Union of Omberlands is free to make policies and
rules in regard to that and thereby, free to make alterations in the terms. Therefore, the
agreement is not binding on Union of Omberlands and State of Aurom. Therefore, there have
not been a curtailment of the right to life by the government. Hence, the breach of agreement
is not violative of Article 21. Therefore, the Government is not liable to provide compensation
to the Auro people.

XII
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. THAT THE WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE HON'BLE COURT

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the present petition filed before
the bench is not maintainable. The maintainability of a petition under Article 32 of Constitution
of Omberlands1 depends on the facts of each case.2 The question as to when the Supreme Court
should entertain the claim depends on the nature of the fundamental right alleged to have been
infringed and the remedy claimed.3 In the present case, the petition is not maintainable on the
grounds that the there is no infringement of Fundamental Rights. [1.1] and Petitioner has not
exhausted Alternative Remedies [1.2].

1.1 THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

It is submitted that the instant case does not warrant an Article 32 petition since there is no
legitimate cause of action for the petitioners to move this Hon'ble Court. Article 32(1) confers
upon individuals the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.4 In the instant case, there are no
violations of fundamental rights contrary to the claims of the petitioners. There are two lines
of contention humbly submitted by the respondent in resonance of this sub issue;

1) That settlement of disputes with regard to foreigners is a matter of policy,

2) Such policy does not violate a statute or the constitution.

With regards to the first line of contention, in the case of State of Arunachal Pradesh v.
Khudiram Chakma5, the Supreme Court has held that, “The decision regarding settlement of
foreigners is a matter of policy. It is well-settled in law that the Court does not interfere in a
matter of governmental policy since it is for the Government to decide.” Thus, the matter with

1
The Constitution of Omberlands and Omberlands Citizenship Act are Pari- Materia with the Constitution of
India and Indian Citizenship Act, 1955.
2
Assam Sanmilitia Mahasangh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 1; Tilokchand Motichand v.
H.B. Munshi, (1969) 1 SCC 110.
3
Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, (1969) 1 SCC 110; Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC
84.
4
INDIA CONST. art. 32, § 1.
5
Arunachal Pradesh v. Khudiram Chakma, AIR 1994 SC 1461.
1
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
regard to determination of immigrants from Mumbarians as citizens, as an extension of
settlement of immigrants is a matter of policy.6

Furthermore, the second line of contention, i.e. that this particular matter does not violate any
provisions of the constitution. This can be done with specific reference to Article 11, and
Article 14 and Article 21. Article 11 of the Constitution of Omberlands. Under Article 117 of
the Constitution the Parliament is vested with the power to make any provisions with respect
to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matter relating to citizenship.

In order for a particular act to be considered against Article 14, there needs to exist
unreasonable classification. The Citizenship Amendment adheres to this criterion and this can
be construed from the facts itself. The Act seeks to achieve an end goal based on the principle
of reasonable classification of persons. The primary aim of providing this classification for
citizens with respect to Mumbarian who face significant persecution in the lands which they
have fled.8 The legislative intent behind the enactment is to redress the problems faced by the
individuals from Mumbaria, who are compelled to seek shelter in Union Omberlands due to
persecution. to ensure that these communities are considered for citizenship so that they can
enjoy the basic amenities necessary for their well-being.

The said Amendment plainly provides conditions and procedure for citizenship of Omberlands.
to redress the problems faced by the individuals from Mumbaria, who are compelled to seek
shelter in Union Omberlands due to persecution.9 These foreigners, who have been migrating
to Omberlands, have acquired vested fundamental rights by virtue of their stay in Omberlands.
These cannot be taken away from them, and hence possess accrued rights of Omberlands.
Therefore, the amendment is in consonance with the Article 21.

The petitioner is therefore not entitled to move this Hon'ble Court and the petition is liable to
be set aside on the grounds that the petition is not maintainable as there is no cause of action
as mentioned above.

6
¶ 8, Moot Proposition.
7
INDIA CONST. art. 11.
8
¶ 3, Moot Proposition.
9
¶ 3, Moot Proposition.
2
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
1.2 THE PETITIONER HAS NOT EXHAUSTED ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES

The power to grant writs under Article 32 is a discretionary power vested in the hands on this
Hon'ble Court.10 It is a well settled proposition of law that existence of an alternative adequate
remedy is a factor taken into consideration in a writ petition.11 The same has been upheld in a
plethora of judgments rendered by this Hon'ble Court. In the instant case, the Petitioner has
approached the Honorable Apex Court directly under an Article 32 petition in spite of having
an alternative remedy available in Article 226 of the Constitution.

Article 226 gives the High Court to entertain Writ petition. It is pertinent to point out that
Article 226 has a non-obstante clause with respect to Article 32. Furthermore, the Article 226
empowers the High Courts of relevant jurisdictions to entertain writs as and when requires.

It was held by the Hon'ble Court in the case of Confederation of A1l Nagaland State Services
Employees' Assn. v. State of Nagaland,12 that the writ petitions should be agitated at the first
instance before the High Court of Judicature exercise of its power under Article 226 of the
Constitution. In the instant case, Society for the Welfare of Indigenous People of Aurom
(SWIPA) has directly approached the Supreme Court,13 whereas the petitioner should have
moved to the High Court under Article 226. This Hon'ble Court, must therefore, exercise its
discretion to quash the instant writ on grounds of non-maintainability.

10
K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481; Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 114; Sunil
Poddar v. Union Bank of India, (2008) 2 SCC 326; R. v. Kensington IT Commissioner, (1917) 1 KB 486;
Abhudhya Sanstha v. Union of India, (2011) 6 SCC 145.
11
Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana, AIR 1950 SC 163.
12
Confederation of All Nagaland State Services Employees' Assn. v. State of Nagaland, (2006) 1 SCC 496.
13
¶11, Moot Proposition.
3
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
II. THAT THE SECTION 6A OF THE OMBERLANDS CITIZENSHIP ACT IS NOT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL

It is most humbly submitted that the Section 6A of the Omberlands citizenship Act is wholly
constitutional. The impugned act does not violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners,
namely Article 14 [2.1], Article 21 [2.2] and thereby, it does not satisfy the condition of rule
of Golden Triangle [2.3]. Furthermore, it does not violate the Article 29 [2.4] and the said
immigrants enjoy protection under international law [2.5].

It is also contended that there is always an initial presumption of validity of a law14 and that
due importance should be given to the legislative intent while deciding the constitutionality of
a provision.15

2.1 THE IMPUGNED ACT DOES NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 14

It is humbly submitted that every person is entitled to equality before law and the equal
protection of the laws,16 irrespective of whether he is a citizen or non-citizen.17 Laws apply
equally to all persons equally circumstanced.18 However, the Courts in a number of judgements
have held that a classification among persons is permissible only if it is reasonable.19

2.1.1 THE IMPUGNED AMENDMENT PASSES THE TWIN TEST OF REASONABLENESS

For any legislation to be reasonable, it should follow the following two points:

(1) It should not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. It should be based on an intelligible

differentia, some real and substantial distinction, which distinguishes persons or things grouped
together in the class from others left out of it.20

(2) The differentia adopted as the basis of classification must have a rational or reasonable
nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.21

14
G.K. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 375.
15
Gita Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, (1999) 2 SCC 228: AIR 1999 SC 1149.
16
Faridabad CT. scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services, (1997) 7 SCC 752.
17
Natural Resources Allocations, In Re Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1.
18
Chiranjeet Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41.
19
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Kerala, (2002) 8 SCC 481 : AIR 2003 SC 355.
20
The State Of West Bengal vs Anwar All Sarkar habib, 1952 SCR 284.
21
Laxmi Khandsari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1981) 2 SCC 600.
4
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
It is submitted that the legislature would adopt a reasonable classification to achieve some
specific ends.22 This Hon'ble Court has repeatedly held that along with the test of a nexus and
intelligible differentia, the policy underlying the statute must also be ascertained. 23 The Court
may refer to relevant material like objects and reasons appended in the Bill, parliamentary
debates, background circumstances leading to passage of the Act, etcetera. 24 Furthermore,
various classifications have been upheld as constitutional,25 if there is a reasonable basis
underlying the classification.26

2.1.1.1 THE IMPUGNED ACT IS BASED ON INTELLIGIBLE DIFFERENTIA

It is humbly submitted that if the law in question is based on rational classification, it is not
regarded as discriminatory.27 Until Independence of Mumbaria from the hands of Balian
administration, people belonging to Mumbaria faced violence and persecution, which
continued till then. They fled from Mumbaria, due to such persecution, and migrated and settled
in different parts of Aurom, which is committed towards its human rights obligations.28
However, due to high population density of Mumbarians too kept on migrating to State of
Aurom, and settling in the region. The Citizenship Amendment, creates a distinction between
the migrants who fled due to the fear of persecution and other who were attracted to the
resources of the State of Aurom.29 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that such a
classification is reasonable and amounts to intelligible differentia.30 It is also submitted that the
abovementioned classification is based on historical background of a region was upheld as
being reasonable.31 In the present case, the differentia was to distinguish between immigrants
who came due to the fear of persecution and who came because of better resources.32

22
Laxmi Khandsari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1981) 2 SCC 600.
23
Kangshari Haldar v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1960 SC 457.
24
Jagdish Pandey v. Chancellor, Bihar University, AIR 1968 SC 353.
25
Swaroop Vegetables Products Industries v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1983) 4 SCC 24.
26
Gopi Chand v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1959 SC 609.
27
Ashutish Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 34.
28
¶ 3, Moot Proposition.
29
¶ 6, Moot Proposition.
30
Report of the Joint Committee on the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016, Lok Sabha, Sess. 16.
31
Parents’ Association v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 657.
32
¶ 6, Moot Proposition.
5
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
2.1.1.2 THE DIFFERENTIA ADOPTED AS THE BASIS OF CLASSIFICATION HAS A RATIONAL
NEXUS WITH THE OBJECT SOUGHT TO BE ACHIEVED

It is most humbly submitted that the differentia which is the basis of the classification and the
Amendment are distinct things and there must be a nexus between them.33 To attract Article
14, it is necessary to show that the selection or differentiation rests on a rational basis with
regards to the object which the Legislature has in view in while making the law in question.34
The aim of the amendment is to redress the problems faced by the Mumbarian under the Balian
administration, who are compelled to seek shelter in Union of Omberlands due to persecution.
Currently they are recognised as illegal migrants and are deprived of even basic amenities
necessary for their well-being.35 Hence, It is necessary to exempt them from being treated as
‘illegal migrants’ and to be considered for citizenship under Section 6A of Citizenship Act,
1955. The amendment has the object to facilitate all the Mumbarian being persecuted in
Mumbaria without any discrimination.

Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the said Act does uphold the test of reasonable
classification and nexus with the object of the Act, and does not violate the spirit of Article
14.36

2.2. THE IMPUGNED ACT IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 21

Article 21 lays down that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law. This procedure cannot be fanciful and arbitrary, but
must answer the test of reasonableness in order to satisfy the requirements of Article 21.37

2.2.1 THERE IS NO OVERT ACT DEPRIVING THE PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO LIFE.

Article 21, being an inherently natural right,38 is applicable to citizens as well as foreigners.39
It is humbly submitted that the Citizenship Amendment is constitutional and does not violate
Article 21. It has been laid down that the law could be declared unconstitutional only when it
has a “direct and inevitable effect”40 on the fundamental rights and not merely an incidental or

33
In re Special Courts Bill, 1978 v. Unknown, (1979) 1 SCC 380.
34
Jalia Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1976) 1 SCC 602.
35
¶ 3, Moot Proposition.
36
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75.
37
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248: AIR 1978 SC 597.
38
K.S. Puttuswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
39
Louis De Raedt v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 554.
40
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248: AIR 1978 SC 597.
6
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
indirect effect on it.41 In the landmark case of Samantha v. State of Andhra Pradesh,42 this
Hon'ble Court made a distinction between direct, overt and tangible acts of the State which can
threaten and deprive one of the right to life, and vague or remote acts which merely threaten
the quality of life.43 It is humbly submitted that in light of the aforementioned observation,
there is no overt action of the respondent which violates the rights of the petitioner.

It is imperative to look at the ‘pith and substance’44 or ‘the true character and nature’45 of the
legislation to determine its true scope. It is necessary to examine the provision as a whole to
ascertain its true nature and character. The said Amendment plainly provides conditions and
procedure for citizenship of Omberlands. It must be considered, in this regard, that the
legislative intent behind the enactment is to redress the problems faced by the individuals from
Mumbaria, who are compelled to seek shelter in Union Omberlands due to persecution.46 The
intention behind the enactment is to ensure that these communities are considered for
citizenship so that they can enjoy the basic amenities necessary for their well-being, it is
submitted that the impugned Act does not violate Article 21.

2.2.2 THE IMMIGRANTS POSSESS THE ACCRUED RIGHT TO LIFE

Article 21 is broad enough to cover both citizens of Omberlands and foreigners, 47 which
includes immigrants. Thus, it becomes the duty of the State to protect the liberty of such
foreigners and ensure that this liberty is deprived only in accordance with the procedure
established by law-being just, fair and reasonable.48 Foreigners entering a territory are
subsequently entitled to certain rights with are essential to the enjoyment of ordinary private
life.49

The Hon'ble Court has implied a whole bundle of human rights out of Article 21 by interpreting
it along with the Directive Principles of State Policy,50 and international charters on Human
Rights.51 It encompasses the right to live with dignity,52 right to food, water and decent

41
Naresh v. State of Maharashtra, 1966 3 SCR 744.
42
Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 8 SCC 191: AIR 1997 SC 3297.
43
Ibid.
44
State of Bombay v. R.M.D.C., AIR 1958 SC 699.
45
Dwarkadas v. Sholapur Mills, AIR 1954 SC 119.
46
¶ 3, Moot Proposition.
47
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248: AIR 1978 SC 597.
48
Issac Isangha Musumba v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 15 SCC 357.
49
Sarbhananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665.
50
Minerva Mills Limited v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 591.
51
Peoples' Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301: AIR 1997 SC 568.
52
Francis Coralie v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608.
7
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
environment,53 right to livelihood,54 shelter,55 good health,56. The Amendment is securing these
basic amenities by providing citizenship to them.

It is also submitted that these foreigners, who have been migrating to Omberlands, have
acquired vested fundamental rights by virtue of their stay in Omberlands. These cannot be
taken away from them, and hence possess accrued rights of Omberlands.

2.3 THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT SATISFY THE RULE OF GOLDEN TRIANGLE

It is humbly submitted that in the decision in Maneka Gandhi57 goes onto mention that Articles
14, 19 and 21 forms the golden triangle of fundamental rights in the Indian Constitution.
Chandrachud interprets this relationship more specifically in the form of isosceles triangle.
Article 19 on the other hand, ‘casts its luminous glow’ of reasonableness on Article 14 and 21
and lends meaning to the mutually derived understanding of Articles 14 and 21.58 The violation
of Article 19 is not the concern of this case here. In the present case, the situation concerns of
the non-citizens who have fled from the Mumbaria. These immigrants are not provided with
the rights under Article 19, which only concerns for the citizens of Omberlands. Therefore, the
current amendment does not satisfy the rule of golden triangle to confer the Section
unconstitutional.

2.4 THE IMPUGNED ACT DOES NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 29

Article 29(1) grants rights to preserve the 'language, script or culture to any section of citizens
residing in the territory of Omberlands.59

2.4.1 THE NATIVES OF STATE OF AUROM ARE NOT A 'MINORITY' UNDER ARTICLE 29(1).

It is humbly submitted that The Citizenship Amendment does not violate Article 29(1) of the
Constitution of Omberlands. Article 29(1), an absolute right,60 is available only to minorities.
Only minorities possessing a specific language, script or culture which distinguishes them from

53
Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1996) 2 SCC 549.
54
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar R. Nandkami, (1983) 1 SCC 124.
55
Shantisar Builders v. Narayan Khimlal Totame, (1990) 1 SCC 520: AIR 1990 SC 630.
56
Vincent v. Union of India, (1987) 2 SCC 165: AIR 1987 SC 990.: AIR 1983 SC 109.
57
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
58
Ibid.
59
INDIA CONST. art.29, § 1; Jagdev Singh Sidhanti v. Pratap Singh Daulta, AIR 1965 SC 183.
60
Sidrajbhai Sabhai v. Syaye of Gujarat, AIR 1963 SC 540.
8
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
the other sections of the population are recognised to attract Article 29(1).61 In the instant case,
the culture and language of the state of Aurom is different from that of the other parts of
Omberlands. 62

It is also submitted that this Hon'ble Court In Re Kerala Education Bill63 held that a minority
means a community which is numerically less that 50 percent of the total population. Following
the dicta of this Court, it is humbly submitted that the entire migrants of Mumbaria are not
given citizenship and there exists a differentia64 to segregate individuals which will keep the
Aurom community in majority. Thus, the natives of State of Aurom are not entitled to any
protection under Article 29(1).

2.4.2 THERE IS NO OBLIGATION ON THE STATE TO PROTECT MINORITIES

Submitting, but not conceding, that the indigenous people of State of Aurom are entitled to
protection under article 29(1), it is submitted that the right is merely protective in nature. It
only confers upon such minorities the right to conserve their own culture65 but does not create
any such positive obligation on the State to conserve these rights.66 The State must only make
sure that there is no such action which is specifically designed to curtail this right.67 In the
instant case, The Citizenship Amendment does not take away or curtail the right of the
minorities to conserve their language or practice their culture. Rather, it has been enacted to
help and grant citizenship to the communities of Mumbaria who are escaping persecution in
their own countries.68

Therefore, The Citizenship Amendment cannot be considered violative of Article 29(1).

2.5 THE SAID IMMIGRANTS ENJOY PROTECTION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

The Art 51(c) of the Constitution directs the state to ‘endeavor’ to inter alia, ‘foster respect for
international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with another’. The

61
D.A.V. College, Jalandhar v. State of Punjab, (1971) 2 SCC 261: AIR 1971 SC 1731; Suresh Chandra
Chimanlal Shah v. Union of India, AIR 1975 Delhi 168.
62
¶ 2, Moot Proposition.
63
In Re Kerala Education Bill v. Unknown, AIR 1958 SC 956.: AIR 2003 SC 355; Bal Patil & Anr.
64
¶ 9, Moot Proposition.
65
St. Xavier's College v. State of Gujarat, (1974) 1 SCC 717: AIR 1974 SC 1389.
66
Harish Salve, Solicitor General of India, General Submissions on the Interpretation of Articles 25 To 30, http:
//www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/sp case comment/submissions l.htm, (August 27, 2019)
67
D.D. Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, 488 (15th ed., 2018).
68
¶ 3, Moot Proposition
9
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
DPSPs are fundamental in the governance of the country.69 They have to be harmoniously
interpreted with the fundamental rights.70 The Courts have sought to interpret various
judgments of foreign courts by way of internalizing them in domestic law and test the
constitutionality of the laws in Juxtaposition with those treaties.71 They even direct the
Parliament to give effect to treaties they are party to.72 Treaties, to which India is not a party
to, have also been recognized by the Courts.73 As with treaties, the courts also appear to be
inclined to incorporate international customary law.74 Our country is party to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’, for short) adopted by the General Assembly
of the United Nations on 19.12.1966. The Union of Omberlands is bound to secure that there
are no attacks on honour of immigrants, protection of the fundamental group and society and
also includes a right to acquire a nationality at birth to the children of such immigrants.

69
INDIA CONST. art. 37; Austin Granville, The Indian Constitution: Corner Stone of a Nation,(2 ed., 1967).
70
In Re Kerala Education Bill v. Unknown, AIR 1958 SC 956.
71
Salil Bali v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 705.
72
People's Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 433.
73
G Sundarajan v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 620.
74
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647.
10
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
III. THAT THE AMENDMENT IN OMBERLAND CITIZENSHIP ACT ON THE BASIS OF AN
AGREEMENT WAS VALID

It is most humbly submitted that the citizenship amendment is wholly constitutional. The
Agreement does not violate the extent and jurisdiction of executive power [3.1] or
constitutional provisions [3.2] and the matter of citizenship comes under the union list of
Omberlands [3.3]. Further, the Parliament is vested with the power to amend and formulate
laws relating to citizenship under article 11 of the Constitution of Omberlands [3.4]. Also, the
parliament followed due procedure [3.5]. It is also contended that the agreement includes the
initiation of legislation for the maintenance of order, the promotion of social and economic
welfare, the direction of foreign policy [3.6].

3.1 THE AGREEMENT IS NOT BEYOND THE EXTENT AND JURISDICTION OF EXECUTIVE
POWERS

It is humbly submitted that the determination of a policy as well as carrying it into execution
is under the executive function.75 The proviso engrafted on clause (1) of article 73 further lays
down that although with regard to the matters in the Concurrent List the executive authority
shall be ordinarily left to be State it would be open to the Parliament to provide that in
exceptional cases the executive power of the Union shall extend to these matters also. Neither
of these articles contain any definition as to what the executive function is and what activities
would legitimately come within its scope.76 The amendment in the Omberlands Citizenship
Act was done under the executive power of the Union of Omberlands77 as its primacy extends
over to the matters of external affairs78 and citizenship as well.

A modern State is certainly expected to engage in all activities necessary for the promotion of
the social and economic welfare of the community, in fact the carrying on or supervision of the
general administration of the State.79 Therefore the agreement is necessary in the promotion of
harmony, and welfare of the citizens, it cater the human right obligations towards the
immigrants also.

75
Ram Jawaya Kapur v State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549.
76
Durga Das Basu, Constitutional Law of India 133(1991).
77
¶ 9, Moot Proposition.
78
¶ 1, Moot Proposition.
79
Ram Jawaya Kapur v State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549.
11
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
3.2 THE AGREEMENT IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

It is humbly submitted that the tripartite agreement is in consonance with the constitutional
provisions. Executive cannot ignore a constitutional prohibition or provisions.80 The power can
be exercised only in accordance with the Constitution.81 The power to make amendment in
provisions of Citizenship Act is not fettered by Articles 5-10 of the constitution and it is
competent for Parliament, in exercise of this power under Article 11, to take away citizenship
already acquired under the earlier article.82 In the present case, the agreement has granted
citizenship to immigrants which is valid through the provision of the constitution.

The agreement took sincere notice that the native citizens are not forced into minority and also
include provisions to protect their community. This has been taken care by providing
reservation for Auro people in various fields.83

Likewise, a notification providing for reservation in favour of persons from hilly areas and
Uttarakhand was held to be reservation under Art. 15(1) by the Constitution as valid.84 The
agreement has provided reservations to the natives in order to strengthen their position in
consonance with the constitution. Therefore, the agreement is not violative of the constitutional
provisions.

3.3 THE MATTER OF CITIZENSHIP COMES UNDER THE UNION LIST OF OMBERLANDS

In exercise of its legislative authority conferred by Entry 17 in List I of the Seventh Schedule85
and in the pursuance of the provisions of the Art. 11 of the Part II, the Parliament passed the
Act which came into force on December, 30, 1955. The sovereign right of the Parliament to
deal with citizenship and all questions connected with it is not impaired by the rest of the
86
provisions of the Part II of the Constitution. The Union of Omberlands has amended the
Citizenship Act as the matters of citizenship comes under List I and thus under the powers of
Union of Omberlands.

80
Wazir Chand v State of H.P., AIR 1954 SC 415: (1955) 1 SCR 408.
81
GNR Rao v Indira Gandhi, AIR 1971 SC 2002: (1971).
82
Izhar Ahmad v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1052.
83
¶ 8, Moot Proposition.
84
Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. (1995) 5 SCC 173: Subjeet Paul v. State of U.P., AIR 1996 All 214.
85
Seventh Schedule, Constitution of India.
86
Izhar Ahmad v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1052.
12
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
3.4 THE PARLIAMENT IS VESTED WITH POWER TO AMEND AND FORMULATE LAWS
RELATING TO CITIZENSHIP

At the outset, the Constitution does not intend to lay down a permanent or comprehensive law
relating to citizenship of India.87 Under Article 1188 of the Constitution the Parliament is vested
with the power to make any provisions with respect to the acquisition and termination of
citizenship and all other matter relating to citizenship.

Article 7389 of the constitution of Omberlands provides that the executive powers of the Union
shall extend to matters with respect to which the Parliament has power to made laws and to the
exercise of such rights, authority and jurisdiction as are exercisable by the Government of India
by virtue of any treaty or any agreement. In the present case, the Union of Omberlands has
amended the citizenship act in the exercise of the executive powers to make it in consonance
with and to render its obligation to the tripartite agreement between State of Aurom, and Auro
Youth United.90

3.5 THAT THE PARLIAMENT FOLLOWED DUE PROCEDURE

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,91 this Hon'ble Court observed that the procedure
contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness. It is humbly submitted that
the Citizenship Amendment is a valid law made by the legislature following a due process. 92
The procedure of making the law was fair, just and reasonable.93

The impugned Amendment has been enacted with full legislative competency. The
constitutional scheme of Chapter XI gives the Parliament an unfettered power to make
provisions as to the acquisition and termination of fundamental rights. Article 11 of the
Constitution provides that nothing in the chapter should derogate the Parliament's power to
make any provision with respect to regulating the citizenship status of the citizens. Since the
Amendment has been brought by the powers conferred by Article 11 in Part II of the
Constitution of Omberlands, it could be stated to have followed due process of law.

87
State of U.P. v. Shah Md., AIR 1969 SC 1234.
88
INDIA CONST. art. 11.
89
INDIA CONST. art. 73.
90
¶ 9, Moot Proposition.
91
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
92
INDIA CONST. art. 21.
93
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
13
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
IV. THAT THE SECTION 3 OF THE OMBERLANDS CITIZENSHIP ACT IS CONSTITUTIONAL

It is humbly submitted that the section 3 of the Omberlands Citizenship Act operates on the
concept of Jus Sanguinis [4.1] and upholds the article 21 [4.2]. The ICCPR and other
international obligations provides for a Right to acquire a nationality [4.3].

4.1 THE SECTION 3 OF OMBERLANDS CITIZENSHIP ACT OPERATES ON 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.”94 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. 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”.95 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.

‘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.96 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.97 The Union of Omberlands should
ensure that the children born in the territory are not left out without a citizenship. The civil
rights of such children of such are to be maintained and in that regard the Section 3 is valid in
its extent to achieve such goal.

94
¶11, Moot Proposition.
95
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1986, Statement of Objects and Reasons.
96
Karm Kumar v. Union of India & Ors, (2010) 172 DLT 521.
97
State Trading Corpn. of India, Ltd. v. CTO, AIR 1963 SC 1811.
14
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
4.2 THE SECTION 3 OF OMBERLANDS CITIZENSHIP ACT UPHOLD THE ARTICLE 21

It is humbly submitted that at this point it would be useful to set-out the view taken but the
European Court of Human Rights in the issue of Karassev Judgement,98 concerning the
interpretation of Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights, which view is though
not binding on us, certainly deserves respect, being the view of eminent jurists in a matter with
similar factual contours. The case points out that the court does not exclude that an arbitrary
denial of a citizenship, impact of such denial would be denial of private life of the individual.99

Furthermore, in another judgement in Genovese case,100 evoking the concept of social identity
in the reasoning, the Court lowered its previous threshold, opening avenues for a more
extensive interpretation of the link between the right to private life and nationality. The denial
of citizenship may lead impact on applicant’s social identity and have impact on the private
life of an individual.101 In Genovese, the Court ruled that the private life of an individual is a
concept that embraces aspects of a person’s social identity, and that the impact of excluding a
child from the acquisition of nationality at birth on her/his social identity can be such as to
result in the violation of the right to private life.102

In the following cases of Mennesson v. France103 and Labasee v. France104, children’s right to
respect their private life, their right to ‘identity’ is very important. Right to identity include the
legal recognition of the parent child relation. Parentage is core of the right to identity.105
Personal identity governed other legal right of the person such as inheritance etc. Thus, denial
of right to identity is violation of right to respect the private life under Article 8.106

Therefore, the Section 3 of Omberlands Citizenship Act upholds Right to Private Life of the
children born in the territory of Omberlands. This Section is necessary to secure their social
identity, liberty and right to identity, securing their parentage. thereby, upholds the Article 21
of the Constitution.

98
Karassev v. Finland, Application no. 31414/96, Admissibility decision of 12 January 1999.
99
Ibid.
100
Genovese v. Malta, Application no. 53124/09, 11 October 2011.
101
Ibid.
102
Ibid.
103
Mennesson c. France, Requête no 65192/11, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 2014.
104
Labassee c. France , Requête no 65941/11, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 2014.
105
Ibid.
106
Mennesson c. France, Requête no 65192/11, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 2014.
15
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
4.3 THE ICCPR PROVIDES FOR A RIGHT TO ACQUIRE A NATIONALITY

It is humbly submitted that we must also remind ourselves that our country is party to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ('ICCPR', for short) adopted by the
General Assembly of the United Nations on 19.12.1966, whereof read as under:107

It is humbly submitted that an alien lawfully in the territory of a Omberlands may be expelled
therefrom only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and be allowed to
submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by the competent
authority.108 Right to the protection of the law against unlawful interference with his privacy,
family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation should
be provided.109The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled
to protection by society and the State of Omberlands.110

Every child shall have, without any discrimination as to race, color, sex, language, religion,
national or social origin, property or birth, the right to such measures of protection as are
required by his status as a minor, on the part of his family, society and the State. Every child
shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have a name. Every child has the right to
acquire a nationality.111

India is also signatory to various international instruments that address the rights of a child to
a nationality from the time of birth. Under Article 7112, the CRC gives a child the right to be
registered immediately after birth, and to have the right to acquire a nationality at birth. Article
8 of the CRC further asserts the right of a child to preserve his/her identity, including
nationality.

107
Mohd. Javed v. Union of India, SCC OnLine Del 8741.
108
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 13.
109
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 17.
110
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 23.
111
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 24.
112
United Nations. (1989).
16
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
V. THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT OF 1999 ARE NOT
BINDING ON REPUBLIC OF OMBERLANDS AND THE STATE OF AUROM AND THEY
ARE NOT LIABLE TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION TO THE AURO PEOPLE FOR
COMMITTING A BREACH THEREOF

It is most humbly submitted that the tripartite agreement of 1999 is not binding on Republic of
Omberlands and the State of Aurom [5.1] and its breach is not violative of article 21 [5.2]. The
Government is not liable to provide compensation to the Auro people [5.3].

5.1 THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT IS NOT BINDING ON UNION OF OMBERLANDS AND THE
STATE OF AUROM

It is humbly submitted that A policy decision cannot be inferred with or struck down merely
on certain disputes as to facts.113 The policy decision must be left to the Government as it alone
can decide which policy should be adopted after considering all points from different angles.
In matter of policy decision or exercise of discretion by Government so long as infringement
of fundamental rights are not shown, the court will not interfere.114

In the present case, the Union of Omberlands is not bound by the agreement as the provisions
are in consonance of the fundamental rights. Its intent was to resolve the situation115 arising
out due to continuous influx of the immigrants from Mumbaria.116 The Union of Omberlands
is free to make policies and rules in regard to that and thereby, free to make alterations in the
terms. Therefore, the agreement is not binding on Union of Omberlands and State of Aurom.

5.2 THE BREACH IS NOT 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.117 It is multi-faceted, including
numerous strands such as the right to livelihood,118 public safety, development, and a
meaningful existence.119

113
Akil Bharat Goseva Sangh v. State of A.P., (2006) 4 SCC 162.
114
Ekta Shakti Foundation v. Govt of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2006 SC 2609.
115
¶ 8, Moot Proposition.
116
¶ 7, Moot Proposition.
117
A.K. Bindal v. Union of India, (2003) 5 SCC 163.: AIR 1990 SC 1480.
118
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545: AIR 1986 SC 180.
119
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248: AIR 1978 SC 597.
17
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
In the present case, the government is not bound by the provisions of the agreement to apply
policies enshrined in the agreement. Therefore, there have not been a curtailment of the right
to life by the government. Hence, the breach of agreement is not violative of Article 21.

5.3 THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT LIABLE TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION TO THE AURO PEOPLE

It is humbly submitted that in 1975, a judgment by Madras High Court in Thangarajan v. Union
of India120, 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.121 The Case of Rudal Shah122 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 21.123

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 India to a victim whose fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution
are infringed are thus, well established.124 It is submitted that there have been no violation of
Article 21, therefore the government is not liable to provide compensation to the Auro people.

120
Madras High Court in Thangarajan v. Union of India, AIR 1975 Mad 32.
121
Ibid.
122
Rudal Shah v State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 141.
123
Ibid.
124
Rabindra Nath Ghosal v. College of Calcutta, (2002) 7 SCALE 137.
18
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 PRAYER

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

1. The writ petition is not maintainable under the Article 32 of the Constitution of
Omberlands.

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

3. The Amendment in Omberland Citizenship Act on the basis of an agreement is valid.

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

5. The provisions of the tripartite agreement of 1999 are not binding on republic of
Omberlands and the state of Aurom and they are not 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 Respondents shall be duty bound forever.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

S/D-

19
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS