TEAM CODE – OC-23

NHRC-GNLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF OMBERLANDS

SOCIETY FOR THE WELFARE OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF AUROM

vs

STATE

MEMORANDUM FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 NHRC-GNLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………….……………….……...P. 3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………....…....P. 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………….…………………………….…………......P.6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES...………….……………………………………….……..........P.7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………….……....…..........P.8

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……..……………...………….…………………………......P.9
1. Whether the instant petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Omberlands?..........................................................................................................P.9
2. Whether Section 6A of Omberlands Citizenship Act is considered unconstitutional?
2.1 Whether Section 6A is ultra-vires to the Constitution of Omberlands?.........P.11
2.2 Whether the amendment of Section 6A is valid as passed on the basis of an
agreement?......................................................................................................P.13
3. Whether Section 3 of Omberlands Citizenship Act is to be held unconstitutional on
the basis of granting citizenship to children born to atleast one illegal immigrant of
Omberlands?........................................................................................................P.15
4. Whether the Republic of Omberlands is to be held liable for compensation for
committing a breach on other provisions of the 1999 Tripartite Agreement?.... P.16
PRAYER…………………………….......…….….…………………..……………………P.21

[MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS] 2 |21

 NHRC-GNLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. STATUTES REFERRED:
1. The Constitution of India, 1950 [Act No. 12 of 2003]
2. The Citizenship Act, 1955 [Act No. 3 of 1930]
3. Foreigners Act, 1946 [Act No. 9 of 1872]

B. TABLE OF CASES:

Sl. TABLE OF CASES Pg

No. No.
1. Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi,(1969) 1 SCC 110 09
2. Rabindranath Bose and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors,.(1970) 1 SCC 84 09
3. Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, 1 SCC 317 09
4. Express Publication (Madurai) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 11 SCC 526 10
5. T.K. Dingal v. State of West Bengal, (2009) 1 SCC 768 10
6. Minnesota Thresher Mfg. Company vs Langdon, 46 N. W. 310 (1890) 11
7. Keshavanda Bharti vs State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 11
8. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 AIR 1590 12
9. Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789 12

C. BOOKS REFERRED:

M. P. Jain (8th edition. 2018)

D. JOURNALS AND REPORTS:

E. DATABASES AND WEBSITES:

1. LexisNexis [www.lexisnexis.com]
2. Manupatra [www.manupatra.com]
3. SCC Online [www.scconline.co.in]
4. Indian Kanoon [www.indiankanoon.org]

[MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS] 3 |21

 NHRC-GNLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

F. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS:
SL. NO. ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSION
1. & And
2. ¶ Paragraph
3. AIR All India Reporter
4. ANR. Another
5. Art. Article
6. Etc. Etcetera
7. Hon’ble Honourable
8. Ltd. Limited
9. ORS. Others
10. PG. Page
11. SC Supreme Court
12. Sec. Section
13. Vs. Versus

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE RESPONDENTS, HAVE THE HONOUR TO SUBMIT THIS MEMORANDUM IN

RESPONSE TO THE WRIT PRETITION PREFERRED BY THE APPELLANTS BEFORE

[MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS] 4 |21

 NHRC-GNLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF OMBERLANDS UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF OMBERLANDS.

THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND

ARGUMENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Republic of Omberlands has a quasi-federal structure and is home to some of the oldest
civilizations. Mumbaria was earlier a colony of Balian and unable to bear the human rights
violations in 1990, over a million Mumbarians illegally entered Aurom through the porous
Nihel border. Omberlands decided to provide food and shelter to the Mumbarian refugees.

[MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS] 5 |21

 NHRC-GNLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

Most of them mingled with the local population and made their own settlements. Many
illegal Mumbarian immigrants also obtained land and employment in Aurom based on
fabricated documents. Mumbaria assured Omberlands that they are willing to take back those
immigrants who had valid proof to show that they were Mumbarian citizens.

2. In December 1998, Aurom was rocked by violent protests led by Auro Youth United (AYU),
alleging that the Governments had not acted on the deportation of the illegal immigrants,
many of whom were on the voters list and that the continued illegal immigration has not only
affected the culture of the Auro people, but also their access to natural resources, opportunity
of education and employment, and the law and order situation in the state.

3. The Omberlands Prime Minister entered into a Tripartite Agreement with the Aurom
Government and AYU in May, 1999 which had resolutions to deport illegal migrants,
preservation of Auro culture, reservation for Auros in education and employment, improving
border security and general infrastructure of Aurom. Accordingly, the Citizenship Act was
amended in May 1999 to include Section 6A.

4. In February 2019, a leading national magazine reported that the intended benefits of the
Tripartite Agreement had not reached the Auros and that the Omberlands Government had
stated that Mumbaria was unable to take back refugees due to lack of citizenship proof as
well as expressed difficulties in securing the riverline border.

5. In April 2019, an unregistered association SWIPA filed a writ petition before the Supreme
Court of Omberlands under Article 32 of the Constitution of Omberlands.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

The following question of law arises for the consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Omberlands

[MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS] 6 |21

 NHRC-GNLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

I: Whether the instant petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Omberlands?

II: Whether Section 6A of Omberlands Citizenship Act is considered unconstitutional?

2.1 Whether Section 6A is ultra-vires to the Constitution of Omberlands?
2.2 Whether the amendment of Section 6A is valid as passed on the basis of agreement?

III: Whether Section 3 of Omberlands Citizenship Act is to be held unconstitutional on the basis
of granting citizenship to children born to one illegal immigrant of Omberlands?

IV: Whether the Republic of Omberlands is to be held liable for compensation for committing a
breach on other provisions of the 1999 Tripartite Agreement?

[MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS] 7 |21

 NHRC-GNLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I: Whether the instant petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of Omberlands?

The counsel would like to submit that the writ petition filed by the Society for the Welfare of
Indigenous People of Aurom is not maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of
Omberlands as it is to be hit by the Doctrine of Laches.

ISSUE II: Whether Section 6A of Omberlands Citizenship Act is considered

unconstitutional?
2.1 Whether Section 6A is ultra-vires to the Constitution of Omberlands?
2.2 Whether the amendment of Section 6A is valid as passed on the basis of
agreement?
In the present case, the counsel humbly submits that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is
constitutional as Article 11 grants the Parliament with power to regulate and create provisions in
accordance to citizenship and matters relating to the same. The amendment of Section 6A was
also allowed as it was agreed upon unanimously through the Tripartite Agreement of 1999.

ISSUE III: Whether Section 3 of Omberlands Citizenship Act is to be held unconstitutional

on the basis of granting citizenship to children born to one illegal immigrant of
Omberlands?

The counsel humbly submits that citizenship should be granted to children born in the State of
Aurom even with one illegal immigrant as they have one parent holding citizenship.

ISSUE IV: Whether the Republic of Omberlands is to be held liable for compensation for
committing a breach on other provisions of the 1999 Tripartite Agreement?

The counsel would humbly like to submit that the Society for the Welfare of Indigenous People
of Aurom have made false claims and hence, prays to the court for the disposal of the petition.

[MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS] 8 |21

 NHRC-GNLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I: Whether the instant petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of Omberlands?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Petition W.P. (C) No. 23/2019
submitted is not maintainable as per the Doctrine of Laches. The Doctrine of Laches is defined
by the Black’s Law Dictionary as being “based upon maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not
those who slumber on their rights”. It is defined as neglect to assert a right or claim which, taken
together with lapse of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to the adverse party,
operates as a bar in a court of equity. It is brought to the notice of this Hon’ble Court that the
said petition has been filed in 2019 i.e. 20 years after the Tripartite Agreement and inclusion of
Section 6A in the Constitution of Omberlands.

In Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi 1, a Constitution Bench was asked to decide on the
Constitutional validity of Section 12A(4) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. The precise ground for
challenge was a violation of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. A majority of three out of five
Judges held that the petition was hit by the doctrine of laches and hence dismissed the petition.
The three judges agreed to the fact that a writ petition filed under Article 32 can be dismissed on
grounds of delay.

Another judgment very close to the heels of the above judgement was Rabindranath Bose and
Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.2, a fervent plea was made to reconsider the judgment in
Tilokchand Motichand. This plea was turned down and it was held that a stale claim of 15
years to challenge appointments and promotions already made without any explanation for so
moving after 15 years would result in dismissal of an Article 32 petition, more so when rights
had accrued to the Respondents in that case.

In Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra 3, a Constitution Bench was

invited to dismiss a petition filed under Article 32 on the ground of laches. The petitioner having
approached the court after a delay of at least eight years, the Court held that barring a writ
1
Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi,(1969) 1 SCC 110
2
Rabindranath Bose and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors,.(1970) 1 SCC 84
3
Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, 1 SCC 317

[MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS] 9 |21

 NHRC-GNLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

petition containing stale claims is not a rule of law but a rule of practice based on sound and
proper discretion.

In Express Publication (Madurai) Ltd. v. Union of India 4, the employer newspaper wished to
challenge paragraph 80 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, which came into force
in 1956. The challenge was made in a writ petition Under Article 32, 45 years later in 2001. This
was turned down by a bench of two Judges with a caveat, that if it was the case of the petitioners
that with the passage of time, a certain provision had become unconstitutional, then obviously
the very passage of time would not amount to delay for which a writ petition would not be
entertained.

Similarly in T.K. Dingal v. State of West Bengal 5, a Bench of two Judges held that there is no
upper and no lower limit when it comes to an Article 32 petition. It all depends on the breach of
the particular fundamental right, the remedy claimed, and how the delay arose. On facts, the
petition was turned down as there was an unexplained delay of ten years.

It is clear from a reading of these p judgments that the ratio of this Constitution bench judgment
can broadly be stated to be that a writ petition filed Under Article 32 can be dismissed on the
ground of delay.

It is therefore contended, based on the stipulations of the Limitations Act,1963 and the above
stated precedent judgements, that the said Petition is not maintainable in this Hon’ble Court and
deserves to be dismissed on such grounds.

ISSUE II: Whether Section 6A of Omberlands Citizenship Act is considered

unconstitutional?

4
Express Publication (Madurai) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 11 SCC 526
5
T.K. Dingal v. State of West Bengal, (2009) 1 SCC 768

[MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS] 10 |21

 NHRC-GNLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

2.3 Whether Section 6A is ultra-vires to the Constitution of Omberlands?

2.4 Whether the amendment of Section 6A is valid as passed on the basis of
agreement?

It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that Section 6A of the Omberlands Citizenship Act
is not unconstitutional through the following breakdown:

1. Section 6A is not ultra vires to the Constitution of Omberlands

The Supreme Court of Minnesota, in the case of Minnesota Thresher Mfg. Company vs
Langdon6, dealt with the variations of the definition of ultra-vires by saying that “the term, ultra-
vires is used in two different sense, meaning an act which transcends the powers conferred by
law on corporation—something which is not within the power of a corporation to perform under
any circumstances, or for any purpose, for example, where a corporation authorized only to build
a railroad engages in banking. This is the primary and really only proper, sense of the term. But
it is also used in a secondary sense, as something beyond the power of the majority to bind
dissenting stockholders, or something in violation of the legal rights of creditors, and something
in violation of the legal rights of creditors, and sometimes in the sense merely of something
beyond the authority of corporate agents or executive officers. The primary meaning of the term
applies when the public is concerned; the secondary meanings when the question is between the
corporation and its shareholders or creditors, or other parties dealing with it, or between it and its
agents or executive officers.”

According to the aforementioned definition, it is safe to understand that the definition of ultra-
vires stands to the former in regards to the public. In a simpler manner, ultra-vires refers to
‘beyond the powers’.

In the landmark Keshavanda Bharti vs State of Kerala (1973) 7 case judgment, the Supreme
Court by a majority held that the Parliament can amend any and every provision of the
Constitution subject to condition that such amendment does not violate the basic structure of the
Constitution. The answer which the court deduced was DOCTRINE OF BASIC STRUCTURE.

6
Minnesota Thresher Mfg. Company vs Langdon, 46 N. W. 310 (1890)
7
Keshavanda Bharti vs State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461

[MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS] 11 |21

 NHRC-GNLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

This doctrine implies that though the Parliament has the prerogative to amend the entire
Constitution, it is subjective to the condition that they cannot in any manner interfere with the
features so fundamental to this Constitution that without them it would be spiritless. To
understand the essence of this doctrine, Justice K. S. Hegde & Justice B. M. Mukherjea opined
that the Indian Constitution is not a mere political document, rather it is a social document based
on a social philosophy. Every philosophy, like religion, contains features that are basic and
circumstantial. While the former cannot be altered, the latter can have changes (just like the core
values of a religion cannot change but the practices associated with it may change as per needs &
requirements).

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain8 was the first case to apply basic structure doctrine. In this case,
the Court had to examine the validity of the 39 th Amendment Act by which Art.329A was
inserted into the Constitution. Along with Art.329A, the Parliament added 38 unrelated laws in
the Ninth Schedule. Further, some issues were also raised that whether the Representation of the
People (Amendment) Act, 1974 and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 are
unconstitutional on whether these acts destroy the basic structure. The Doctrine of Basic
Structure was reaffirmed in this case. The Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution Bench
unanimously applied the basic structure doctrine to invalidate Article 329A as it was beyond the
amending power of the Parliament and destroyed the basic feature of the Constitution. But, it
upheld the Prime Minister’s election on the basis of the retrospective amendment to the electoral
law.

Minerva Mills v. Union of India9 challenged the Forty-second amendment before the Supreme
Court by the owners of Minerva Mills, an industrial firm which was nationalized by the
government in 1974. It was argued that Section 55 of the amendment had placed unlimited
amending power in the hands of Parliament. The attempt to immunize constitutional
amendments against judicial review violated the Doctrine of Basic Structure which had been
recognized by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati and Indira Gandhi Election
Case. Also, it was argued that this deprived courts of the ability to question the amendment even
if it damaged or destroyed the Constitution’s basic structure. The Supreme Court struck down
Section 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment Act 1976. It also provided key clarifications on the
8
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 AIR 1590
9
Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789

[MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS] 12 |21

 NHRC-GNLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

interpretation of the basic structure doctrine. The court ruled that the power of the Parliament to
amend the constitution is limited by the constitution. Hence the parliament cannot exercise this
limited power to grant itself an unlimited power and the parliament cannot usurp the fundamental
rights of individuals, including the right to liberty and equality.

It was evident that the illegal Mumbarian immigrations and subsequent forged citizenships had
deprived the very rights of the native Auros. The Govt. of Omberland was therefore duty bound
to protect the interest and rights of its own citizens, i.e. the Auros and in order to resolve the
situation, on 15th May 1999, the Prime Minister of Omberlands entered into a Tripartite
Agreement with the Government of Aurom and Auro Youth United, which then culminated in
the amendment of the Constitution of Omberland to include Section 6A.

Furthermore, Art. 11 in the Constitution of Omberlands states that “Parliament to regulate the
right of citizenship by law- nothing in the forgoing provisions of this part shall derogate from the
power of the parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of
citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship.”

The above provision stands as authority that grants power to the parliament to make any
provision in respect to citizenship and hence validates the amendment of Sec. 6A of the
Citizenship Act by Omberlands.

Thus it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Section 6A was legislatively and
legally inducted into the Constitution to protect the Constitutional Rights of the Auros and
therefore cannot be considered as ultra vires to the Constitution as it is allied to the Doctrine of
Basic Structure of the Constitution.

2. Amendment of Section 6A is valid on the basis of agreement

The amendment that was made which here in question is a result of the 1999 Tripartite
Agreement, an agreement between Government of Aurum, Auro Youth United and Government
of Omberlands as a response to resolve the violent protests led by Auro Youth United.

1. Art. 11 as aforementioned validates with what authority the Government of

Omberlands had passed the amendment of Section 6A as it grants power to the
parliament to make any provision in respect to citizenship.

[MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS] 13 |21

 NHRC-GNLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

2. The State of Aurom had willingly entered into the Tripartite Agreement to
dissipate growing conflict and had drawn up demands as per their requirement
and was unanimously agreed upon.

The Tripartite Agreement resolutions were as follows:

a. The Government of Omberlands will amend the Omberlands Citizenship Act to grant
citizenship to any person of Mumbarian origin who entered the State of Aurom from

Mumbaria prior to 25th January 1991.

b. The Government of Omberlands will take effective measures for the detection and
deportation of illegal immigrants living in Aurom.

c. The Government of Omberlands will set up quasi-judicial authorities for determination

of the citizenship status of persons suspected to be illegal immigrants.
d. The Governments of Omberlands and the state of Aurom will take measures to allow
the Auro people to protect and preserve their culture.
e. The Governments of Omberlands and the state of Aurom will provide reservation for
the Auro people in schools, colleges and government employment.
f. The Government of Omberlands will take quick and sustained measures for
strengthening of border security to stop any illegal immigration in the future.
g. The Governments of Omberlands and state of Aurom will take quick and sustained
measures for improving the general infrastructure of the state of Aurom.

ISSUE III: Whether Section 3 of Omberlands Citizenship Act is to be held unconstitutional

on the basis of granting citizenship to children born to one illegal immigrant of
Omberlands?

[MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS] 14 |21

 NHRC-GNLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

It is brought to the notice of the Court that the above definition does not imply that birthright
citizenship will be granted if either of the parents is an illegal migrant, however, it neither
implies that citizenship cannot be granted if either one of the parents is a citizen of
Omberlands.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Section 3 of the Omberlands Citizenship
Act states that “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”.

Citizenship in Omberlands is largely determined by the rule of jus sanguinis (citizenship of the

parents) and “provides for a single citizenship for the whole of Omberlands. A person can be a
citizen by birth, descent, registration, or naturalization.

Under the Omberlands Citizenship Act an “illegal migrant” is defined as a foreigner who has
entered into Omberlands:

1. without a valid passport or other travel documents and such other document or authority
as may be prescribed by or under any law in that behalf; or

2. with a valid passport or other travel documents and such other document or authority as
may be prescribed by or under any law in that behalf but remains therein beyond the
permitted period of time.

It must be noted that 926 people had been excluded according to the statistics of the report “Two
Decades since the Auro Movement: A Review” and the deportations of such high numbers of
declared foreigners could strain relations with Mumbaria further and then declaring of many
non-citizens exposes them to the risk of statelessness may attract unwarranted international
scrutiny.10 Further, the creation of new stateless persons would be anti-ethical to international
law and the obligations subsisting under it.11

10
Para 10, Fact sheet
11
Art. 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS] 15 |21

 NHRC-GNLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

In order to protect these illegal immigrants, the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill of 2016 was
passed in the Lower House of Parliament on January 8 12 and therefore, it stands to say that a
citizen of Omberlands, married to a foreigner who meets the criteria, then their offspring, if born
in Omberlands will automatically be conferred birth right citizenship of Omberlands as per
Section 3 of the Omberlands Citizenship Act. The bill seeked to reduce requirement of 11 years
of continuous stay in the country to 6 years to obtain citizenship by naturalisation.

ISSUE IV: Whether the Republic of Omberlands is to be held liable for compensation for
committing a breach on other provisions of the 1999 Tripartite Agreement?

It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that the present Government of Omberlands
and the State Government of Aurom have been focused on fulfilling the commitments made in
the Tripartite Agreement despite the diplomatic and financial hurdles being posed.

The respondents hereby submit that keeping in view the history of the matter and the current
situation prevailing, the following points were deliberated and legislated upon, in consonance
with the Constitution of Omberlands, before arriving at the formulation of Section 6A:

1. Eroding of the Cultural Heritage, traditions and language of the Auros:

Heritage is the identity of a state13. It features a belonging to the culture of a particular society,
such as traditions, languages, or buildings that were created in the past and still have historical
importance14. Cultural and natural heritage of outstanding universal value is the common heritage
of humanity. Everyone’s cultural right and right to quality environment are recognized by
Human Rights law15 . Right to development as an inalienable human right includes cultural well-

12
Citizenship (Amendment) Bill to be tabled in Rajya Sabha , Feb 12, 2019, 10:48 IST,
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/67953825.cms?
from=mdr&utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/citizenship-amendment-bill-to-be-tabled-in-rajya-sabha-key-
points/articleshow/67953825.cms?from=mdr
13
Heritage – definition, Merriam – Webster Dictionary
14
Heritage – definition, Cambridge English Dictionary
15
Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights 1966,
International Covenant on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights 1966, U. N. Declaration on Right to Development
1986.

[MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS] 16 |21

 NHRC-GNLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

being16 . Preservation of heritage, however formidable it may appear, is an inevitable

responsibility.

The Preservation of National Heritage is a duty imposed by the Constitution of Omberlands

(which is parimateria with the Constitution of India) under Article 51 A, Fundamental Duties, -
Article 51 A (f) - ‘It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to value and preserve the rich
heritage of our composite culture17.’ Fundamental Duties are mandated provisions of the
Constitution. It is a duty imposed upon every citizen.

2. Reduced access to the rich local natural resources to the Auros:

Life, livelihoods, culture and society, are fundamental aspects of human existence - hence their
maintenance and enhancement is a fundamental human right. Destruction of environment and
thereby of the natural resources, is therefore, a violation or leads to the violation of human rights
- directly by undermining the above aspects of human existence, or indirectly by leading to other
violations of human rights, for example through social disruption, conflicts and even war.
Conversely, human rights violations of other kinds can lead to environmental destruction, for
instance, displacement by social strife/war can cause environmental damage in areas of
relocation; or breakdown in sustainable common property management. The manifestations of
such violations present themselves through a loss of access to clean air and water; loss of access
to productive land; loss of energy sources and biomass; loss of food and health security; social
and economic marginalization; and physical displacement. Several hundred million people have
been increasingly forced to live far below the minimum levels required for a decent human
existence, deprived of adequate water, food, clothing, shelter and education, health and
sanitation.

The drastic increase in population of the state of Aurom mainly due to the millions of
Mumbarian refugees, has placed a tremendous strain on the rich natural resources of Aurom
thereby leading to strife and violence. The Auros’ were also unable to access and harness the rich
natural resources of the state due to their forcibly reduced numbers.

16
Ibid
17
P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of India

[MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS] 17 |21

 NHRC-GNLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

Article 21 of the Omberland Constitution states: “No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedures established by law.” Article 21 is the heart of all
other fundamental rights. Article 21 has a very expansive scope and has immense content with
lesser words. Law is never still, it is ever evolving and ever changing accordingly to meet the
challenges of time. Therefore constitution provisions, especially fundamental rights and in
particular, Article 21 has been broadly construed by the judiciary. The court attempted to expand
the reach and ambit of Article 21 rather than accentuate their meaning and content by judicial
construction. Thus, the judiciary broadened the concept of life, extended the scope of personal
liberty so as to include within itself all the varieties of rights which go to making the personal
liberties of man. Basic principles were compiled to understand procedure established by law. The
judiciary has resolved most of the environmental cases where they considered right to good
environment as fundamental for life and upheld as fundamental right. Thus we can consider
Article 21 as mandate for life saving environment.

3. Reduced education opportunities for the Auros :

The Constitution of Omberlands has provisions to ensure that the State provides education to all
its citizens. Right to education is the only right which finds its place in three parts of our
Constitution- Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties.
The three articles in all these three above mentioned parts were added by The Constitution
(Eighty Sixth) Amendment Act, 2002.

The 86th amendment added Article 21-A, a fundamental right which says that- ‘The State shall
provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such
manner as the State may, by law, determine’.

The native people of Aurom who approached to this hon’ble court of Omberlands were not
discriminated from the same.

4. Reduced opportunities for employment in State Services for Auros :

Equal Opportunities for State Services: As per Article 16 of the Constitution, no discrimination
will be exercised against any citizen for any government employment, appointment or post only

[MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS] 18 |21

 NHRC-GNLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

on grounds of religion, caste, class or race. Thus, all citizens can occupy any post in India
however high it may be. No discrimination will be made between a man and woman.

Post Mumbaria gaining independence in 1991 and after repeated dialogues between the two
countries, the new government in the Republic of Mumbaria assured the then Government of
Omberlands that they are taking necessary steps to stop their citizens from entering Omberlands.
It also stated that they were willing to take back those persons living in Omberlands, who have
valid proof to show that they are Mumbarian citizens.

The Government of Omberlands have indicated difficulties in deporting any person unless
Mumbaria is willing to take them back- the detected illegal immigrants do not contain valid
documents proving their Mumbarian origin, and the Government is in continuous dialogue with
the Republic of Mumbaria in this regard. The Government of Omberlands also stated that
although the Agreement was signed by the then Prime Minister in his capacity as such and the
present government is not bound by the same, steps are being taken to ensure the welfare of the
Auro people. The Government is also facing difficulties in securing the riverine boundary due to
the technical complications involved in fencing etc.

However, despite the above hurdles, the Governments have definitely made progress on the
various commitments made in the Tripartite Agreement and are fully focused on achieving
completion in order to ensure that the Auros receive and benefit their Constitutional Rights.

The Governments propose to release a white paper shortly on the status of various initiatives
launched towards fulfilling the Tripartite Agreement conditions, which will indicate the progress
on ground as well as the huge financial commitments already incurred, which would clearly
indicate the positive intent of the Governments towards the Auros.

In view of the above, it is prayed before this Hon’ble Court that the Governments have not
committed any breach of contract towards fulfilling the terms of the Tripartite Agreement and on
the contrary have been focused on fulfilling the terms despite the diplomatic and other hurdles
being faced.

PRAYER

[MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS] 19 |21

 NHRC-GNLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

Wherefore in the light of the above facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced, contentions
submitted, legal precedents and principles cited, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble
Supreme Court of Omberlands-

(i)That, the instant case is not maintainable at the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Omberlands.
(ii)That Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional
(iii)That the children of one illegal immigrant should be granted a citizenship of Omberlands
(iv)That the petition put forth by the Society for the Welfare of the Indigenous People of Aurm
should be disposed off.

The Court may also be pleased to pass any other order/orders, or any directions which this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the ends of justice, equity and good conscience.

And for this act of kindness, the Respondents as in duty bound shall ever humbly pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Place- Omberlands S/d-

Date- 15.07.2019 (Counsel for the Respondents)

[MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS] 20 |21