1.

It is been argued on the behalf of the petitioner that the Pochinki Citizenship
( Amendment) Act, 2019 is in violation of the Article 14 of the Pochinki Constitution as
first tier of classification which excludes Galivs from the Act. The constitution of
Pochinki provides equality which is secured by the Article 14 of the constitution. But this
equality is not absolute as it permit reasonable classification but prohibit class legislation.
the constitution grants the state the power of classifying person for legitimate reasons. 1
The two-fold tests which were to be borne in mind while determining the validity of a
statute on the ground of violation of Article 14 relies on two principles, that (1)
classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes person or
things that are grouped together from others left out of group (2) that differentia must
have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. 2 The
vary objective for the enact of this amendment is to protect the minorities communities
who are been facing religion persecution in their parent country namely Mytla and Gatka.
2. In our view, the court find that the respondent has argue correctly in relation to the
reasonable classification made in the PCA as the Act achieve it objective by classifying
the Non – galivs with the other. It is important to note that “the principle of equality does
not mean that every law must have universal application for all person who are not by
nature, attainment or circumstances in the same position, as the varying needs of the
different classes of person often requires 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”.
3. This court has repeatedly held that equal protection of law means the rights to equal
protect in similar circumstances or to similarity situated person. What it guarantees is
similarity of and not identical treatment. It is open secret that these minorities in the
Mylta and Gakta has been tremendously persecuted and discriminated on religion lines in
these countries, which is not the case with the vast Galivs community of these countries.
4. The petitioner also argued that the second tier of classification is also not reasonable i.e.
only from these two countries only the illegal migrant will be granted citizenship. It is to
be noted that the every country is not a religious country, the only purpose to choose only
this country is that there is a long back history with these two country as the migrant are
entering Pochincki since the time of partition, The other two countries are religious

1
Kedar Nath v State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955.
2
R.K. Dalmia v Justice Tendolkar, AIR 1985 Sc 538.
 country and facing religion persecution as Non-Galivs are minorities in these countries.
Moreover, these countries shared border with some states of the Pochincki.
5. Based on the abovementioned finding of the court and with the argument of the
respondent, the court is in the view that the Pochinki Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019
is not in violation with the provision of Article 14 of Pochinki Constitution.
6. The petitioner had argued that the state has failed to consider safety and security of the
inhabitants of the people of the Pochincki as it infringes Article 21 of the Constitution. in
our view the petitioner has wrongly consider it as the infringement of Article 21 of the
constitution rather than it promote the basic essential part of the life as to provide them
shelter and protect them from the persecution by the majority Galivs in neighbouring
Countries. The court find that the view point of the respondent toward the Article 21 is
correctly stated during the submission of both parties.
7. The court find that the Pochincki Citizenship (Amendment) Act does not attract any
infringement toward the life and liberty of the people of Pochincki and is not in violation
of Article 2a of Constitution.
8. The court is also in the view that excluding Galivs who are not facing religious
Persecution will be positive step toward the Article 21 as if we open our gates for million
of people from other two stated than it will be violation of Article 21 as the countries
have not sufficient resources to provide livelihood to million other Galvis peoples from
other Countries. As article 21 includes right to livelihood which will be denied to the
people of Pochincki if we allow all the religion group to provide shelter in our country.

The petitioner had raised the issues regarding the validity of PCA based as it against the
procedure for the citizenship established under Article 5, Article 6, Article 7, Article 8,
Article 9, Article 10 and the same the amendment should be struck down. The court is in the
view that the particular argument by the petitioner has no base and could not be agreed. As
the Article 11 of the Constitution provides the power to the legislation to enact any law for
the purpose of the termination or acquisition or any other all matter regarding the citizenship.
As based on this power the Citizenship Act 1955 was enacted in the Pochincki which provide
the proper regarding the citizenship of Pochincki. The court agrees with defence made by the
respondent in regard to this contention that the Legislation has Power to enact any law for the
Citizenship as the same PCA has been enacted for providing citizenship to the minorities who
are facing persecution in their parent countries.
The petitioner has shown concern regarding the political right of the people of the kameshki
due to increase in the migrants and will harm the right of the indigenous peoples. The court
agrees with the concern of the petitioner but the same can be overcome by the Government
by following the same policy as followed during 1971 for the migrants which says that the
people who been migrants and appear there name in the NRC list can be granted the
citizenship but no political right be given to these people as they can neither be representative
and nor have right to vote in the election for some period of time decided the central
government.