Name of Authors

 Sonakshi Singh

 Tanya Arora

Name of College/University

 Amity Law School, Noida

1
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

REVIEW PETITION NO. 3253 OF 2018

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/10/2018

PETITIONER: COMMITTEE OF CITIZENSIP RIGHTS

VS.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIGO

BENCH:
XYZ (C.J)
ABC (J)
RST (J)
UVW (J)
MNO (J)

2
 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE 5

1. The Review Petition has been filed to declare The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2016
unconstitutional on the ground that it prohibits a particular class of people from getting citizenship
on the basis of religious identity and to stop the deportation of Rohingya’s Muslims. This present
petition has been brought by certain social activists with the aim to focus attention towards this
political aberration and also to assist a group of people in attaining a suitable status for getting a
basic standard of living as a part of Right to Life (Article 211) and to prevent harassment of
immigrants through judicial process and also to fill the vacuum in current legal system. This court
admits this Review Petition.

2. The immediate cause of filing this petition is an incident that happened in late 1960s, when
Chakma’s and Hajong’s entered Indigo, from East Zakistan (now Sangladesh) as they were facing
persecution there for being non-Muslims, and sought asylum in State of Vassam and Tarunachal
Pradesh. In 1971, Sangladesh separated from Zakistan through Liberation War, which led to illegal
influx of people from Sangladesh to Indigo. On 30th September, 1971, the government of Indigo and
Sangladesh issued a Circular according to which, migrants who entered Indigo from Sangladesh
before 25th March, 1971, were to get citizenship under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 in
Indigo. Despite this circular, the illegal influx of Sangladesh migrants continued, which led to the
passing of ‘IMDT Act’ in Vassam, which allowed these illegal migrants who entered after 25th
March, 1971 to continue to reside in Vassam. Consequently, a Memorandum of Settlement was
entered into by All Vassam Students Union of Indigo with the State of Vassam, dated 15th August,
1985 (Vassam Accord), pertaining to which, illegal migrants of Sangladesh who entered post 25th
March, 1971 should be detected and deported, while those who entered between 1961-1971 were to
be denied voting rights for 10 years, but would enjoy all other citizenship rights as per the newly
inserted Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

3. A Writ Peition was filed by All Vassam Student Union in the Supreme Court against the ‘IMDT
Act’. Consequently, the court declared the said Act to be unconstitutional. Thereafter, The
Citizenship Ambendment Bill, 2016 was passed by Parliament, which made the illegal immigrants
(Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Chirstians) from Nafghanistan, Sangladesh and zakistan
eligible from citizenship and exempted them from the Passport (Entry into Indigo) Act, 1920 and the
Foreigners Act, 1946. On 2nd January, 2018 ‘Committee of Citizenship Rights’ filed a Writ Petition
in the Supreme Court against the said Act as a violation of Article 142 (discrimination on the basis of
religion).

4. On 22nd January, 2018 around 40,000 Rohingya’s Muslims fled from Uyanmaar to Indigo illegally
which became a potential threat to the internal and national security of Indigo. Consequently, a
Circular dated 28th April, 2019 was issued stating that Indigo would be unable to accommodate these
illegal migrants. Thereafter, ‘Committee of Citizenship Rights’ filed a Writ Petition in the Supreme
Court against this circular. On 25th July, 2018 the Supreme Court (2 judge bench) held that the

1
The Constitution of India, 1949, Article 21 – “Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
2
The Constitution of India, 1949, Article 14 – “ Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the
law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race,
caste, sex or place of birth.”
3
 refugees of Chakma and Hajong were not to be deported, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2016 is
constitutional and directed the detection and deportation of Rohingya’s Muslims. Hence, the present
review petition by ‘Committee of Citizenship Rights’.

5. Every such incident results in violation of Right to Life and Liberty, which is guaranteed to all and
any person present in India i.e. citizens and non-citizens. It is a clear violation of Article 14 and 21 of
Constitution of Indigo. One of the most horrifying consequences of deportation of these people is
violation of their Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21.

6. The court has heard the Learned Counsels appearing from both sides and framed the following
issues:

i. Whether Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 violates Article 14 of the Constitution in
that as it singles out the immigrants between 1966 and 1971 from Sangladesh from other
immigrants who entered after 1971 and Rohingya’s Muslims?
ii. Whether The Citizenship Law (Amendment) Act, 2016 violates Article 14 in the sense that it
discriminates amongst the illegal migrants on the basis of religion?
iii. Whether Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and The Citizenship Law (Amendment)
Act, 2016 violates Article 21 of the citizens of Vassam due to massive illegal influx of
migrants from Sangladesh?
iv. Whether deportation of Rohingya’s Muslims to Uyanmaar is correct or not?

7. The Notice has been issued to Union of Indigo and Attorney General of Indigo appeared for Union
of Indigo and rendered assistance. The Learned Attorney General of Indigo gave the following
contentions. Firstly, he contended that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 gives citizenship
right to immigrants who came from Sangladesh between 1966 and 1971 and not after that because
the political and social situation had changed after Liberation War, which rendered the acceptability
of these immigrants difficult. Also, the Rohingya’s Muslims pose a threat to the internal and national
security of Indigo, thereby, making it impossible to give them citizenship in Indigo. Additionally, the
learned counsel contended that there has been a huge uncontrolled influx of immigrants from
Sangladesh over the past five decades that it has changed the demographics of the state. The result
following such influx was that the original inhabitants of Assam- indigenous and ethnic groups like
Bodo, Assamese Brahmins- have become a minority. Secondly, the Learned Attorney General of
Indigo contended that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2016 does not infringe Article 14 of the
Constitution because granting citizenship to the immigrants from Sangladesh who entered after 1971
and Rohingya’s Muslims will cause internal and external aggression. According to Article 355 of the
Constitution, it is the duty of the Union of Indigo to provide protection to its States from internal
disturbance and external aggression. Therefore, he contended that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act,
2016 is constitutional. Thirdly, the Learned Attorney General contended that the deportation of
Rohingya’s Muslims is correct as it is the foremost duty of the Union of Indigo to protect its citizens
from external aggression. He argued that the fundamental rights of citizens must be protected at all
costs as accepting the immigrants who entered after 1971 from Sangladesh and the Rohingya’s
Muslims will be an infringement of Right to Life (Article 21) of the citizens of Vassam.

8. We place a great appreciation for each Counsel who appeared in the case and rendered assistance to
enable us to deal with this unusual matter in manner considered appropriate for this nature. Apart

4
 from Article 14 and 21, Indigo being a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
1948, has a duty to incorporate all the principles mentioned in their Legislative system. This
Declaration is an important document in the history of human rights. It was drafted by
representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world by the
United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General Assembly resolution 217
A) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations.3

9. Some provisions of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, which are in significance to the
present context are:-

Article 7: “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal
protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of
this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.”4
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2016 violates Article 7 of Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, 1948 because it grants protection from deportation and gives citizenship to the illegal
immigrants, who are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Nafghanistan,
Sangladesh and Zakistan, while discriminating with Muslims. The human right of these Muslims is
being violated as they are not getting equal protection before law.

Article 14: “(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from
persecution.”5
According to this Article, everyone has a human right to seek asylum from other countries from
persecution happening in his own country. According to Cambridge Dictionary, the word
‘persecution’ means “unfair or cruel treatment over a long period of time because of race, religion,
or political beliefs.” The Supreme Court in 25th July, 2018 had recognised this right in case of
Chakmas and Hajongs, but has failed to do the same for the immigrants who entered Indigo after the
Liberation War in 1971 and also for Rohingya’s Muslims. All these immigrants had sought asylum
in Indigo because of the persecution faced by them in their respective home countries. Therefore,
Indigo needs to recognise this human right of immigrants and grant them citizenship without
discriminating amongst them.

10. According to Article 51(c)6 and Article 2537, the Parliament is under a legal obligation to make
proper legislations and take administrative action for implementing the international treaties and
conventions. Therefore, the Union of Indigo has an obligation to follow the principles of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.

11. On hearing the contentions of the Learned Counsels of both the parties in the matter of first issue,
this court has come to a conclusion that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 is violative of
Article 14 in the sense that it discriminates amongst the immigrants by granting citizenship to one

1
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Oct, 2, 2018, 8:35 pm), https://www.ramauniversity.ac.in/icipr2018/Bluebook.pdf
41
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, Article 7
51
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, Article 14
6
“foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another; and
encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration PART IVA FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES”
7
“Legislation for giving effect to international agreements: Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter,
Parliament has power to make any law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement
or convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at any international conference, association or other
body”
5
 particular class of immigrants only. The Parliament has recognised the citizenship right of Chakmas
and Hajong, while completely ignoring the same of immigrants who entered Indigo after the
Liberation War in 1971 and Rohingya’s Muslims without having just and proper reason to do so.

12. After hearing the arguments of the Learned Counsels of the Petitioner and Respondent on second
issue, this court finds that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2016 is unconstitutional on the ground
that is infringes the fundamental right to equality of immigrants under Article 14. The court points
out that the fundamental right to equality is available to both citizens as well as non-citizens.
Therefore, immigrants, being non-citizens, also have this right, which cannot be infringed by State
action. Thus, the passing of the said Act by the Parliament in violation of this fundamental right to
equality is unconstitutional. Additionally, The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2016 is contradictory
to the Immigrants (Expulsion from Vassam) Act, 1950 in the sense that Section 2(b) provisio of the
latter Act gives exemption to all the persons who migrated from Zakistan on account of disturbance
or fear of disturbance in their homeland, from getting expelled from Vassam, while the former Act
does not give this exemption to the Muslim people of Zakistan. Both of these Acts, passed by the
parliament, are not only contradictory but the former Act also violates Article 14 of the Constitution
of Indigo.

13. This court has heard the contentions of both the parties as to the third issue and come to a conclusion
that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2016 does not
violate the Right to Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed by Article 21, of the citizens of Vassam.
The rationale behind this conclusion is that, the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 is given
to both citizens as well as non-citizens. Therefore, both the classes of persons are entitled to the same
right. One’s right cannot be infringed to protect the same right of another. Giving the citizenship
right to the immigrants will make their rights equivalent to that of the citizens of Vassam, rather than
violating the same. Also, after a large number of migrants from East Zakistan having enjoyed all the
rights as Citizens of Indigo for over the last 40 years, there arises no question as to why these
immigrants should now be deported back and not given citizenship rights of Indigo.

14. As for the last issue, the court observes that the decision of the Supreme Court Bench of two-judges
on 25th March, 2018 to the effect that it directed Rohingya’s Muslims all over the territory of Indigo
to be detected and deported back to the country of Uyanmaar for the sake of national security, was
incorrect and based on fictitious reasons and discriminates them from other immigrants like
Chakmas and Hajongs, who live in Tarunachal Pradesh and have been directed to not to be deported
back because of the impossibility of their detection since they have been living in Indigo since 50
years and the Court issued directions to grant citizenship to them. This is a violation of Article 21 on
the ground of religious identity and also Article 14 (Right to Equality). It is against the human rights
to send these immigrants back as they do not have citizenship of Uyanmaar, thereby, making them
helpless. This court further observes that Indigo, being a secular country since the passing of 42nd
Amendment, 1976, has prohibited all kinds of discrimination based on religion, therefore, it should
not do so in case of immigrants’ rights as well. The Constitution of Indigo does not discriminate
between citizens and non-citizens while giving the fundamental right of equality and that of life and
personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21 respectively, therefore, the Parliament should incorporate
this non-biasness in its legislations also to give effect to the principles of the fundamental law of the
land i.e. the Constitution. While it is the foremost duty of the Union of Indigo to render importance
to the rights of its subjects, there is a higher duty of the Union of Indigo as a humanitarian to render

6
 help to the immigrants, who have sought asylum in Indigo due to the growing disturbances and
violence in their home countries. Therefore, if not on constitutional grounds, than on humanitarian
grounds, this court gives the following judgment:

15. Above-mentioned provisions support the contentions of petitioner to give Rohingya Muslims as well
as the immigrants who entered Vassam post 1971, asylum in Indigo. They should be given
citizenship rights equivalent to that of the immigrants of Chakmas and Hajongs. Accordingly, we
direct that the above guidelines and norms should have been strictly observed while deciding this
matter and creating equality amongst people which is not visible in the judgment in question in this
matter. We further direct Union of Indigo to protect the immigrants without any discrimination of
religion or gender. The case of these above-stated immigrants must be checked on the facts and
requirements and they shall be given asylum on the grounds of equality and to protect their right to
life. The above-mentioned directions should be considered while deciding the matter of refugees
until suitable legislation related to refugees is enacted by the Parliament. The Review Petition is
disposed of accordingly.