PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT

ACTIVITY
Drafting Pleading And Conveyancing

Submitted To:- Ms Aastha Jain

Submitted By:-Kundan Kumar Roy

10210303815

VB

Page 1
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BHARAT

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION NO. OF 2019

IN

PETITION NO. / /2019

IN THE MATTER OF:-

COMMITTEE OF CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS ……………. PETITIONER

V/S

UNION OF INDIA ……………………….. RESPONDENT

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The Petition is filed within time.

2. The Petition is not barred by time and there I;
3. There is no delay in filing the same against order 29th March 2019 passed by this Hon’ble
Court and is within the 30 days limitation period.

Page 2
ACTS:

 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950

 THE CITIZENSHIP ACT,1955.
 THE ASSAM ACCORD
 THE CITIZENSHIP ( AMENDMENT) BILL,2016
 THE FOREIGNER’S ACT 1946
 THE ILLEGAL MIGRANTS DETERMINATION TRIBUNAL ACT,1983

MAINTAINABILITY

This review petition is directed against impugned judgement dated 25th March,2019 wherein the
Chakma’s and Hajongs refugees were directed to be granted citizenship. Rohingya Muslims
were to be detected and deported to the Uyanmmar for the sake of national security.

The review petition filed by the Petitioner is maintainable as it is filed within the limitation
period and as the Petitioner being the aggrieved party has the right a review petition against the
previous order.

REVIEW

1. The Court may review its judgment or order, but no application for review will be entertained
in a civil proceeding except on the ground mentioned in Order XLVII, rule I of the Code, and in
a criminal proceeding except on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. The
application for review shall be accompanied by a certificate of the Advocate on Record
certifying that it is the first application for review and is based on the grounds admissible under
the Rules.

2. An application for review shall be by a petition, and shall be filed within thirty days from the
date of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. It shall set out clearly the grounds for
review.

Page 3
JUDGEMENT :
1. During the Sangladesh liberation war, around 10 million people fled from East Zakistan to
Indigo, so as to escape the genocidal actions being carried out by the West Zakistan armed
forces. This led to an anti-foreigner movement. One of the consequential effects of this
movement was the illegal influx of non-Indigos from Sangladesh starting 25th March 1971. On
30th September 1971, a Circular was issued by the Government of Indigo and Sangladesh in their
respective Official Gazette, by virtue of which migrants from Sangladesh who camebefore 25th
March 1971, were to get citizenship under section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 in Indigo.

2. Despite the Circular, several illegal migrants came into Indigo and their presence changed the
whole cultural and ethnic composition of the area of Vassam. After that, in 1983 “Illegal
Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) Act, 1983”, (IMDT Act)‟ applicable to the state of
Vassam was passed, which allowed several non-Indigos, who entered Indigo illegally after 25th
March 1971 to continue to reside in Vassam. The implementation of this Act witnessed
unprecedented ethnic violence in Vassam. Also, the implementation of the act was such that the
illegal migrants started residing in the territory and it became virtually impossible to secure their
detection, deportation or even to remove their name from the electoral list.

3. To solve this issue, a Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) was entered by All Vassam Students
Union, the Union of Indigo with Vassam, dated 15th August 1985,commonly known as "Vassam
Accord" which brought an end to the Vassam Agitation. As per this accord, the illegal migrants
who had migrated to the territory of Indigo after 25th March 1971 would be detected and
deported from Indigo. And those who entered between 1961 and 1971 were to be denied voting
rights for ten years but would enjoy all other citizenship right. A new Section 6A was inserted in
the Citizenship Act, 1955 by the Parliament through Citizenship (Amendment) Act. It provides
that all persons who came to Vassam on or after January 1, 1966, but before 25th March 1971
from the territories of Sangladesh and who have been ordinarily resident of State of Vassam shall
be deemed to be Citizen of Indigo.

4. For the implementation of Vassam Accord and unconstitutionality of IMDT Act, All Vassam
Student Union (AVSU) filed a writ petition. Subsequently, the said Act was declared
unconstitutional for the implementation of Vassam Accord.On 15th December 2017, The
Citizenship Law (Amendment) Bill, 2016, which provided that the illegal immigrants who are
Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Nafghanistan, Sangladesh and
Zakistan are eligible for Citizenship and have been exempted from the provisions of the Passport
(Entry into Indigo) Act, 1920, and the Foreigners Act.

5. On2nd January 2019,Committee of Citizenship Rights filed a writ petition in the Supreme
Court of Indigo on the ground that “The Citizenship (Amendment) Act makes discrimination
with the Muslim-minorities in Sangladesh, Nafghanistan, and Zakistan which is a violation of
Article 14. After that on 22nd January 2019, violence broke out in the Rakhine province of the

Page 4
Uyanmaar, causing Forty Thousand Rohingya’s entering Indigo illegally. A circular dated 28th
April 2018 was issued. Aggrieved by the Circular/Notice dated 28th April 2019, Committee of
Citizenship Rights filed a writ petition on 30th April 2018 on the ground that they cannot be
deported back as they do not own citizenship of Uyanmmar.

6. The two-judge bench of Hon‟ble Supreme Court held on 25th March 2019 as under:

• Chakma‟s and Hajongs refugees living in Tarunachal Pradesh were not to be deported back as
it impossible to detect them for they are residing in the territory from last 50 years and issued
directions to the Central Government to grant citizenships to them. In addition, The Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 2016 is Constitutionally Valid.

• Directed that Rohingya‟s Muslims all over the territory must be detected and deported back to
the Uyanmmar for the sake of national security.

• Issue guidelines to Parliament to draft a specific refugee law for the country.

7. Aggrieved by the decision a review petition on 19th August 2019 challenging the decision of
the Court.

8. Hence, this present petition for reviewing.

9. Mr.ABC, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners stated and
submitted that the petitioners are mandate refugees and not economic migrants in India and,
therefore, they have legitimate reasons for being victimized in their home country because of
their hailing from ethnic and religious minority community. He further highlighted the violence
which broke out in the Rakhine province of the Uyanmaar causing more than 3 lakh Rohingya
Muslims to flee from Uyanmaar.

10. The learned advocate further prayed on behalf of the petitioners that they should be not
repatriated to their country of origin as they are not posing any threat to national security and if
deported, they would be subjected to inhuman treatment by Government in their country. It has
been further submitted that UNHCR identifies persons as mandate refugees only after thorough
investigation regarding the status of a refugee and in the past it has been a standard practice of
the Union of India to grant Asylum to the refugees who are certified by UNHCR. The learned
Senior Advocate also submitted that though a foreign national does not have a Fundamental
Right to settle in a different country but certain rights are open for foreign national also under the
Constitution.

The framers of the constitution of India while framing the fundamental rights, took caution as to
what fundamental rights have to be applied to foreigners and what rights have to be specifically
reserved for the citizens of India. And accordingly, only the following rights are available to
foreign nationals:

Page 5
Article 14 - Right to equality before law and equal protection of laws

Article 20 - Right to protection in respect of conviction for offences

Article 21- Right to protection of life and personal liberty

Article 21A - Right to elementary education

Article 22 - Right to protection against arrest and detention in certain cases

Article 23 - Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour

Article 24 - Prohibition of employment of children in factories etc.,

Article 25 - Right to freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of
religion

Article 26 - Right to freedom to manage religious affairs

Article 27 - Right to freedom from payment of taxes for promotion of any religion

Article 28 - Right to freedom from attending religious instruction or worship in certain

educational institutions He has referred to the observation of the Supreme Court in National
Human Rights Commission vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Anr.1 wherein it was held that the
Constitution of India confers certain rights on every human being and certain other rights on
citizens. No person could be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
the procedure established by law. The State is bound to protect the life and liberty of every
human being, be he a citizen or otherwise. The learned advocate dragged Article 14 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights,1948 to our notice where India signatorily declares that
everyone has a right to seek and enjoy in other countries, asylum from persecution and that such
right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non political crimes
or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of United Nations.

11. The learned Senior Advocate spoke about unconstitutionality of ‘The Citizenship (
Amendment ) Bill, 2016 , wherein the relaxation criteria for eligibility of illegal migrants to gain
citizenship is unreasonable. With no explanation given as to the inclusion of this clause, it is
prima facie unconstitutional, failing the test of reasonability contained in Article 14 (Right to
Equality) of the Constitution and corrupting the “basic structure doctrine” (Kesavananda Bharati
v State of Kerala 19732).

He further added that, The most glaring discrepancy in the bill is that it categorically states that
religious minorities from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh will no longer be treated as
illegal immigrants. It specifically names six religions, that is, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains,
Parsis and Christians. Muslims and Jews have been deliberately kept out of the ambit of this bill.
1
National Human Rights Commission vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Anr., (1996) 1 SCC 742
2
Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala 1973

Page 6
Even though some of these religions are also religious minorities in India, it is notable that four
of these six religions fall under the ambit of Hindu personal law.

12. The learned advocate brought to the notice of this Court that this bill fails the test of
reasonable classification as set out in Article 14 of the Constitution. The twofold test relies on
two principles, that is, reasonable classification and nexus between the object sought to be
achieved and the legislation (State of Madras v V G Row 19523).

Secularism is a basic structure, as has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in S R Bommai v
Union of India (1994)4. It has also been incorporated in the Preamble to the Constitution, which
serves as the guiding light to interpreting the Constitution.

13. Mr.XYZ, appearing on behalf of the respondent i.e. Union of India, has been submitted that
India is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Conventions on the status of refugees and the 1967
protocol. No national law has also been enacted till date regarding refugees and asylum seekers.
Despite this, Indian Government has received accolades worldwide for their general policy of
giving shelter to refugees.

Section 3(2) (c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 empowers the Central Government to deport
foreigners from the country if they come to adverse notice or their presence in the country is
considered to be against the national interests. The Foreigners Act, therefore, confers the power
to expel foreigners from India and such power is absolute and unfettered and no interference
could be made with respect to the subjective satisfaction of the Union regarding their decision to
deport a foreign national. It has been contended on behalf of the Union of India that the mere fact
that petitioners were granted refugee status by the UNHCR does not bestow upon them any right
to stay in Indigo. The order of deportation is not a punishment but only a method for ensuring the
return of a refugee to his own country if he has not complied with the conditions of his refugee
status. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are not economic migrants to India.

14. The learned Advocate for the Respondent countered on the fundamental rights of the foreign
nationals and stated that the Fundamental Right of a foreigner/refugee is only confined to Article
21, i.e. the right to life and liberty and does not include the right to reside and settle in India,
which right is only applicable to the citizens of the country. For the contention that the proposed
amendment violates Article 14, it is important to note the findings of the Supreme Court of India
that, “The principle of equality does not mean that every law must have universal application for
all persons who are not by nature, attainment or circumstances in the same position, as the
varying needs of different classes of persons often require separate treatment. It would be
inexpedient and incorrect to think that all laws have to be made uniformly applicable to all
people in one go.”

15. This Court has also noted in one of its leading judgments that, “the equality under Article 14
is not indiscriminate. Paradoxical as it may seem, the concept of equality permits rational or
3
State of Madras v V G Row 1952
4
S R Bommai v Union of India (1994)

Page 7
discriminating discrimination. Conferment of special benefits or protection or rights to a
particular group of citizens for rationale reasons is envisaged under Article 14 and is implicit in
the content of equality. There is no abridgement of the content of Article 14 thereby – but an
exposition and practical application of such contents.”

He further contends that the ‘The Citizenship ( Amendment ) Bill, 2016, is perfectly valid and it
shouldn’t be looked upon as a religion based discrimination rather it should be sighted as a step
towards the national security of the country. It is within this dynamic nature of citizenship that
we need to view The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill of 2016 which, if passed, shall see the dawn
of a new era of citizenship in India. It contains two major provisions. Firstly, Hindus, Sikhs,
Jains, Buddhists, Christians, and Parsis coming from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh
would not be treated as illegal immigrants, thus making them eligible for citizenship.

16. Secondly, it reduces the time required for naturalization for these communities from the
current twelve years to seven years. The process of naturalisation usually has a time requirement
with regards to the permanent residence in India so that the applicant becomes well versed with
the nation's laws, culture, spirit, customs, and way of life.

He concluded saying that the logic is plain and simple, that if these six groups of religious
minorities have been facing brutal discrimination and persecutions in these three countries on
religious grounds, then the protection too has to be extended to them on religious grounds.

ORDER

The Court on hearing both the side and acknowledging the facts by both the learned advocates.
Considering the points of determination specified by the Mr.XYZ , Advocate appearing on
behalf of the Respondent , this Court accepts the arguments made by the advocate and agreed
that the Rohingya refugees were ‘ illegal migrants’ and has to be deported back to their own
country. The illegal migrants being originated from Uyanmaar shall be deported back to
Uyanmaar. However, the Court considers the Affidavit which was submitted by the Respondent
states that the Government of Uyanmaar was able to establish the identity of these individuals as
citizens of that country” and has verified the nationality of these Uyanmaar nationals” and is
issuing them a “Certificate of Identity”. The Rohingya continue to be excluded from citizenship
in Uyanmaar and are offered only National Verification Cards, which are merely a proof of
residence. Thus, they continue to be stateless and are considered as foreigners in Uyanmaar.
They shall then acquire citizenship of Uyanmaar on fulfilling their prescribed conditions.

The Court also supports the constitutional validity of the The Citizenship ( Amendment ) Bill,
2016 The decision to grant citizenship status to illegal migrants is not a run-of-the-mill issue as it
involves granting citizenship rights to foreign nationals and therefore each step in this respect
will have to be taken with extreme care and caution. It would be in the Constitutional interests to
analyse this issue in its entirety, considering different aspects of the problem, including current

Page 8
national and international perspectives and circumstances. Let us assume that the proposed
amendment didn't make this religious distinction. Then, India would be opening its doors to
almost 370 million people from these three countries, most of whom are Muslim.

The question arises, do we have adequate resources to accommodate them, even if a small
percentage of their population decide to enter our territory? Will it not have an adverse impact on
the rights of India’s indigenous population in terms of enjoyment of resources and other
benefits?

This Court has repeatedly held that equal protection of law means the right to equal treatment in
similar circumstances or to similarly situated people. What it guarantees is similarity of and not
identical treatment. It is an open secret that these six identified groups of people have been
tremendously persecuted and discriminated on religious lines in these countries, which is not the
case with the vast Muslim majority of these countries.

Thus, the Court declares ‘The Citizenship ( Amendment) Bill,2016 to be constitutionally valid.

Review Petition No. /2019 is disposed of in terms of the above.

Announced in Open Court on 10th October,2019.

Page 9