IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1522 OF 2019
IN THE MATTER OF:

DEMOCRATIC YOUTH
FEDERATION OF INDIA (DYFI) …PETITIONER

VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. … RESPONDENTS

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEMOCRATIC YOUTH

FEDERATION OF INDIA (DYFI) BY Mr. P. V SURENDRANATH Sr. Adv

The Writ petition has been pending before this Hon'ble Court from the year 2019. Rules
under the Citizenship Amendment Act was not notified when the matter was admitted by
this Hon'ble Court. Now, on the eve of the General Election, the Union Government notified
the rules making the Act operational. This short written submissions is only for the purpose
of hearing in the IA. The Petitioner craves leave of the Hon'ble Court to file a detailed
Written Submission at an appropriate stage.
I. ACT AND NOTIFICATIONS VIOLATE EQUALITY PRINCIPLE ENVISAGED
UNDER ARTICLE 14
1) The Impugned act and notifications challenged in the present Writ Petition ex
- facie violate Article 14. As discrimination is writ large on the face of the
legislation, the onus is shifted to the State to sustain its validity. Ram Krishna
Dalmia vs. S. R . Tendolkar (1959 SCR 279)
2) The classification must not be arbitrary but must be rational. In order to pass
the test, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely; (1) that the classification
must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that
are grouped together from others and that (2) differentia must have a rational
relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act, R. K Garg Vs Union of
India (1981) 4 SCC 675.
3) Over emphasis of classification and micro classification in interpreting Article
14 will be negation of equality principle of our Constitution. LIC of India &
Anr. Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. (1995) 5 SCC 482 and Subramaniam Swamy
Vs. CBI (2014) 8 SCC 682
4) The Act/ notification are discriminative as they give unequal treatment on the
basis of religion, countries of origin, nature of persecution, date of entry into
India. To illustrate:
• The non-Muslim residents who illegally migrated from Afghanistan,
Pakistan and Bangladesh will be able to apply for citizenship through
registration and naturalization. Whereas, the similarly placed Muslim
residents will continue to be barred. Article 14 disallows differentiation
between groups of people when the rationale for doing so does not serve
a reasonable rationale or purpose (State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali
Sarkar).
• The Amendment Act also shortens the minimum period of residence in
India for these communities to obtain citizenship by naturalisation, from
11 to 5 years. A child born in India after 2003 to Hindu illegal migrants
would qualify as a citizen by birth whereas a child born to even " one"
illegal migrant of Muslim community would not. The Act discriminates
the residents illegally migrated from other countries like Sri Lanka,
Nepal, China, Myanmar and Bhutan even if their religious identities and
the reason for migration are same. Therefore, a Buddhist who migrated
from Pakistan owing to religious persecution would qualify for
citizenship, whereas a Buddhist who for the same reason flees from a
country other than the three countries mentioned in the Act would not.
• Rohingya Muslim are persecuted in Myanmar, Ahamadia and Shia’s are
persecuted in Pakistan and Shia and Hazara Sects are persecuted in
Afghanistan.
5) The neighbouring countries of India, including Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, and
Myanmar, which were previously part India before gaining independence,
have State Religion. Afghanistan, on the other hand, has never been a part of
 India. There are guiding principles in selecting and pursuing territories or
countries.
6) The Act also is silent on the following situations such as:
a) What is the effect if a Muslim illegal migrant from Pakistan converts to
Hinduism during his stay in India, or
b) What is the citizenship status to a child born in India to an inter-religious
couple fled from Afghanistan due to religious persecution, or
c) What is the citizenship status of a child born to an Indian citizen to a
Muslim illegal migrant from Bangladesh.
The vagueness on such crucial aspect would make the provision arbitrary
and fall foul of rationality.
7) Where a legislation discriminates on the basis of an intrinsic and core trait of
an individual it cannot form a reasonable classification based on intelligible
differentia. Navtej Singh Johar Vs. UOI (2018) 10 SCC 1). Religion
constitutes an integral facet of an individual’s personal identity and autonomy.

II. VIOLATIVE OF PRINCIPLE OF SECULARISM - BASIC STRUCTURE

8) Equality principle and equality under Article 14 of the Constitution is part of
Basic Structure of the Constitution. His Holiness Keshavananda Bharati vs.
State of Kerala and Ors. (1973) 4 SCC 225.
9) The impugned Citizenship Amendment Act and the notification are in direct
conflict with the principle of secularism and part of basic structure of the
Constitution of India. His Holiness Keshavananda Bharati vs. State of
Kerala and Ors. (1973) 4 SCC 225.
10) Religion cannot be a criteria, exclusively or in association with other as a
criteria for citizenship. “Citizenship is either by birth or by domicile and not
as a member of religion, caste, sect, region or language…” S. R. Bommai vs
UOI in (1994) 3 SCC Pg. 1, 252. Otherwise it would be a direct afront to the
basic structure of our Constitution.
III. IN CONFLICT WITH UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
(UDHR) AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS
 11) The CAA and the notifications are in direct conflict with international
declarations and covenants to which India is a signatory; they are in violation
of Articles 2, 6, 7 and 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR), Article 2 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. The principle of Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR) and provisions thereof may have to be read if need be, in the
domestic jurisprudence. [Vishaka and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
(1997) 6 SCC 241; Chairman Railway Board and Ors. vs. Chandrima Das &
Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 465]
12) There is no determining principle in deciding ‘minorities under
persecution’.
IV. DEPRIVATION OF RIGHT TO LIFE AND HUMAN DIGINITY
13) The Act is violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution as the deprivation of entry
to the people who have entered into India fearing persecution- be it religious,
political or ethnic- from their countries of origin has a killing & chilling
effect upon them as right to life is denied to them in effect.
14) It not only deprives right to life but also violates right to dignity. Person’s
human dignity is a golden thread passing through each and every provision
of the Constitution.
15) Denial of nationality/ citizenship is political death of a person. The impugned
Act is violative of Arts. 21.
V. VIOLATES RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION
16) Art. 25 guarantees freedom of conscience & free profession, practice and
propagation of religion to all in the territory of India. As the illegal Muslim
migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan who became the
residents of India will be constrained to abandon their free practice of their
original religion and to embrace the other religions entitling them for
citizenship. Ultimately he or she will be facing the crucial question – to opt
religion or nationality – citizenship.

Drawn by:- Mr. Biju P. Raman, AoR

Mr. Subhash Chandran K. R, Adv &
Mr. Sawan Kumar Shukla, Adv