Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Respondent Moot Memorial Draft, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Mock Trial and Moot Court

This document is a sample moot memorial for respondents.

Typology: Study Guides, Projects, Research

2020/2021

Uploaded on 08/10/2021

bhavna-singh-3
bhavna-singh-3 🇮🇳

5

(6)

5 documents

1 / 40

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
TLL-Ansal University's 1st National Online Moot Court Competition 2020
Team Code: TM98
TLL-Ansal University's 1st National Online Moot Court Competition 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA
[UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA]
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _ / 2019 & OTHER CONNECTED MATTERS
Indican Union Shishlamic League & Ors .……….. (PETITIONER)
v.
Union of Indica & Ors.……………………………………(RESPONDENTS)
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
[MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER] Page 1
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa
pfd
pfe
pff
pf12
pf13
pf14
pf15
pf16
pf17
pf18
pf19
pf1a
pf1b
pf1c
pf1d
pf1e
pf1f
pf20
pf21
pf22
pf23
pf24
pf25
pf26
pf27
pf28

Partial preview of the text

Download Respondent Moot Memorial Draft and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Mock Trial and Moot Court in PDF only on Docsity!

Team Code: TM TLL-Ansal University's 1st National Online Moot Court Competition 2020 BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA [UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA] WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _ / 2019 & OTHER CONNECTED MATTERS Indican Union Shishlamic League & Ors .……….. (PETITIONER)

v.

Union of Indica & Ors.……………………………………(RESPONDENTS) SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3) WHETHER OR NOT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF ANY SECTION IS

  • LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS _____________________________________
  • INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ______________________________________
  • STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ________________________________
  • STATEMENT OF FACTS ________________________________________
  • ARGUMENTS PRESENTED _____________________________________
  • SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ___________________________________
  • ARGUMENTS ADVANCED _____________________________________
  • CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID? __________________________________ 1) WHETHER OR NOT THE CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT IS
  • 1.1) Relevance of Article 5 _________________________________________
  • 1.2) Violation of Article 14_________________________________________
  • 1.3) Basic Structure Doctrine________________________________________
  • 1.4) Classification_________________________________________________
  • 1.5) Violations of Principles of International Law________________________
  • INCLUDED AS PEAVEFUL PROTEST? __________________________ 2) WHETHER OR NOT THE PROTEST LEADING TO RIOTS COULD BE
  • 2.1) Article 19 ___________________________________________________
  • 2.2) Public Protests _______________________________________________
  • 2.3) Current Scenario______________________________________________
  • 2.4) Test for Reasonableness ________________________________________
  • 2.5) Different Views_______________________________________________
  • GOVERNMENT FAILED TO FULFIL CONSTITUTIONAL DIRECTIVE ?_ BEING VIOLATED BY THE ACT AND WHETHER OR NOT THE
  • 3.1) Violation of Fundamental Rights _________________________________
  • 3.2) Non Fulfilment Directive Principles of State Policy___________________
  • FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO INDICAN CONSTITUTION ?__________ 4) WHETHER OR NOT THE INTERNET BAN HAS VIOLATED ANY
  • 4.1) Right to Speech and Expression under Article 19 (1)_________________
  • 4.2) Internet & Freedom of Speech and Expression______________________
  • 4.3) Test of Proportionality_________________________________________
  • PRAYER ____________________________________________________

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES CITED

Phunstsok Wangyal v. Ministry of External Affairs, W P ( C) No. 35 391 2016

Tenzin Tselha v. Union of India, W P ( C) 79831 2016 14 Karma Gyaltsenneyratsang v Union of India, W.P ( C ) 6074/2014 & C, NO. 14780/

Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha v. Union of India, (2015) 3 SCC 15 Southern Railway Co v Greene, 216 U.S. 400 (1910) 16 Budhan Chaudhary v State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191 : (1955) 1 SCR 1045

Kewal Singh v Lajwanti, 1980 AIR 161, 1980 SCR (1) 854 16 Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101 : 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600

State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75 : 1952 SCR 284

Navtej Singh Johar & Ors v. Union of India, W P (CRIMINAL) NO. 76 OF 2016.

Tej Bahadur Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 All 655 17 Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 : (1978) 1 SCC 248

Keshavananda Bharati v State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 : (1973) 4 SCC 225

Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789 : (1980) 2 SCC 591

S.R Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918 (2024) : (1994) 3 SCC 1

Aruna Roy v. Union of India, W P (civil) 98 of 2002 18

Sharma Transport v Government of A.P, (2002) 2 SCC 188 : AIR 2002 SC 322

State (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India, (2018) 8 SCC 501 (para. 308); 19 Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, (2018) SCC Online SC 1690 (para. 189)

Kedarnath Bajoria v State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 660 20 Vishaka v State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241, AIR 1997 SC 3011 21 K. S Puttaswamy v. Union of India, W P (CIVIL) NO 494 OF 2012 22 Government of India v Cricket Association of Bengal, 1995 AIR 1236, 1995 SCC (2) 161

Shri Dinesh Trivedi, MP & Orsv.Union of India, (1977) 14 SCC 306 23 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain, 1975 AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3) 333 22 Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124 24, Indian Express v. Union of India, 1986 AIR 515, 1985 SCR (2) 287 24, Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, 2002 (3) SCR 294

S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, 1989 SCR (2) 204, 1989 SCC (2) 574

Om Prakash v. Emperor, AIR 1956 All 241, 1956 CriLJ 452 24 Re-RamlilaMaidan Incident Dt ... vs Home Secretary And Or, SUO MOTU WP (CRL.) NO. 122 OF 2011

Superintendent Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia, AIR 1960 SC 633 : (1960) 2 SCR 821

Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar, 1962 AIR 955, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 769 28 Natural Resources Allocations; In Re Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1 (77)

R.K. Garg v. Union of India, (1981) 4 SCC 675 30 E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1947 4 SCC 3 32 Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Union Territory of Delhi , 1981 1 SCC 608

Sri Srinivasa Theatre v. Government of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1986 SC 999 32

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONERS HAVE THE HONOUR TO SUBMIT BEFORE THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA, THE MEMORANDUM FOR THE

PETITIONERS UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

  1. Indica is the largest democracy in the world which has the lengthiest written constitution. The Preamble to the Constitution of Indica declares Indica as a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic. Indican Constitution guarantees to every citizen certain rights and expects its citizens to fufil their duties.
  2. Secularism was introduced in the Indican Constitution by the 42nd^ Amendment; this made it a part of “Basic Structure Doctrine” to the Constitution of Indica. This basic structure cannot be amended to remove any word whatsoever. However, additions can be made to them if the situation demands. The preamble was held to be a part of the basic structure vides this case and owing to the fact that Indica is home to multiple religious denominations, the idea of Secularism found its place in the Constitution as part of the 42 nd^ Amendment in 1973.
  3. Indica being a secular nation means that it does not does not favour any specific religion, but rather gives equal status and respect to all religions. Sindhuism being the religion that is followed by majority of Indicans, i.e. 79.8%, followed by Shislam (14.23%) and other religions including Chrismanity and Siddhism is 2.3 and 1.72 percent, respectively. It has a neighboring country; Zakistan which opposed to Indica does not have a secular nature.
  4. Indica is the second most populous nation in the world. Keeping this is mind; the citizenship laws play an important role in Indica. There has been a major influx of migrants to Indica in the last few years via the undefined and poorly demarcated North eastern border of the country.
  5. The influx of the immigrants increased at a larger pace in Nassam. To curb this the Central and State government in collaboration, launched the National Register of Citizens for Nassam, which contained entries of the people being original inhabitants of the state and as the government claims, excluded all the illegal immigrants. The Register was informed to be released with the aim to identify the real citizens and provide them with

ARGUMENTS PRESENTED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER OR NOT THE CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

ISSUE 2: WHETHER OR NOT THE PROTEST LEADING TO RIOTS COULD

BE INCLUDED AS PEACEFUL PROTESTS?

ISSUE 3: WHETHER OR NOT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF ANY

SECTION IS BEING VIOLATED BY THE ACT AND WHETHER OR NOT THE

GOVERNMENT FAILED TO FULFIL CONSTITUTIONAL DIRECTIVES?

ISSUE 4: WHETHER OR NOT THE INTERNET BAN HAS VIOLATED ANY

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS TO INDICAN CONSTITUTION?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: WHETHER OR NOT THE CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

  • It is contended that the Citizenship Amendment Act is constitutionally invalid. A basic sweep of the legal principles and a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution’s language will show that the CAA breaches the fundamental right, especially the fundamental right and guarantee of equal treatment as contained in Article 14. The CAA has basically defeated the objective of providing citizenship to those fleeing from persecution by bringing in the religious test for acquiring this citizenship. The entire classification is absolutely arbitrary and wholly unjust.
  • Based on the simple reading of CAA, three separate classifications can be made in the current scenario. The first would be that migrants from Zakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh have been distinguished from the migrants all across the world. Secondly, a classification has been made on the basis of faith separating significantly the shislamik Community from the Sindhu, Jain, Sikh, Siddhist and Chrisman communities. ISSUE 2: WHETHER OR NOT THE PROTEST LEADING TO RIOTS COULD BE INCLUDED AS PEACEFUL PROTESTS?
  • It is humbly contented that protests leading to riots can be included as valid protests. The government in any country is there to ensure proper functioning of the country. It is absolutely important for a government to give correct information to its citizens and to take into consideration demands and wishes of the citizens. Even when the government is criticized, it must take it in stride and try to implement amends instead of shutting down the voices of the people like it was done in the current case. Open criticism of government policies and operations is not a ground for restricting speech and expression.
  • The protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act are a sign of a democratic society whose logic demands that the voice of the society be heard by those in power. In the current case, the protests were not violent. The police force used violence to end the

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER OR NOT THE CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT IS

CONSTITUTONALLY VALID?

a) It is contended that the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) is constitutionally invalid. A basic sweep of the legal principles and a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution’s language will show that the CAA breaches the fundamental rights, specifically the fundamental right and guarantee of equal treatment as contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of Indica. As rightly pointed out, “the National Register of Citizens and the Citizenship Amendment Act are manifestly conjoined in their objectives”; they are two sides of the same coins, and hence speaking about CAA in isolation, keeping aside the National Register of Citizens would not be the correct approach in the said situation. However, even if one is to look at the CAA in its individuality, it is still plainly unconstitutional. Implementing the CAA is like a brutal slap on the foundations of our Constitution particularly on the word “secularism”, a doctrine that has time and again been the center of attention in Indica. b) When the Constitution of Indica was adopted in the year 1950, an entire chapter was devoted to the conferment of citizenship. While Articles 6 to 10^1 delineate various special forms of citizenship necessitated by the Partition and the ensuing migration of people into Indica, Article 5 makes it clear that the framers believed that citizenship ought to be governed broadly by the principle of jus soli , that is citizenship predicated on residence and birth. Citizenship Act, 1955 also strengthened the principle of jus soli as even in the said act, jus soli was held as the governing factor of citizenship. 2 (^1) Constitution of Indica, Art. 6, Right of citizenship of certain persons who have migrated to India from Zakistan; Constitution of Indica, Art. 7, Right of citizenship of certain migrants to Zakistan; Constitution of Indica, Art. 8, Rights of Citizenship of certain persons of Indican origin residing outside of Indica; Constitution of Indica, Art. 9, Persons voluntarily acquiring citizenship of a foreign state not to be citizens; Constitution of Indica, Art.10, Continuance of the rights of citizenship. (^2) Niraja Gopal Jayal, Faith-based Citizenship, India Form, (Nov. 13, 2019), https://www.theindiaforum.in/article/faith-criterion-citizenship

1.1 RELEVANCE OF ARTICLE 5

a) Article 5 states that any person who at the commencement of the Constitution had domicile in Indica and (a) who was born in the territory of Indica; or (b) either of whose parents was born in the territory of Indica; or (c) who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of Indica for not less than five years preceding such commencement, shall be a citizen of Indica. Over time, various alterations were made to the principle and the value of the principle did get diluted. First in the year of 1985 when Section 6A was introduced with a motive to effectuate the Nassam Record. The said section stated that all those who came to Nassam on or after 1stJanuary, 1966 but before 25th^ march 1971 must register themselves under Section 18 for citizenship due to which the country saw immense political instability in the coming years. b) The second case was in the year 2003 when the law deprived all those people who were born post the amendment if either of the parents^3 was an illegal migrant.^4 This signified a shift in Indican citizenship law from jus soli (citizenship by birth) to jus sanguinis (citizenship by descent). None of the above alterations however dared to touch the angle of secularism in the country. This was however changed after the introduction of CAA. Section 2 (1)(b) of the Citizenship Act defines an illegal migrant as any foreigner who has entered into Indica without a valid passport and travel documents or whose valid documents are about to expire during the stay. Such illegal migrants were deprived of the means of acquiring any legal citizenship under the law and if anyone had entered Indica trying to escape from persecution or had fled in search of any monetary opportunity, he/she would have no way of seeking citizenship under the law. The definition of the (^3) Phuntsok Wangyal v Ministry of External Affairs, W.P. (C) NO. 3539/2016: Tenzin Tselha v Union of India, W.P. ( C ) 7983/2016: Karma Gyaltsenneyratsang v Union of India, W.P ( C ) 6074/2014 & C, NO. 14780/ (^4) Citizenship (Amendment), 2003 (Act No. 6 of 2004).

1.2. VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14

a) Article 14 is the fundamental right in the Constitution of Indica. In the structure of the Constitution, any law made by the Parliament or the State legislature which happens to encroach on the foundations of any of the fundamental rights will be void, this would include any law made by the Parliament under Article 11. The powers of the law makers are restricted by the text of the Constitution and they have to be abided to. b) The basic characteristics of Article 14 which can be understood by reading the bare text of the Constitution are that Article 14 is a fundamental right and is applicable to every person within the territory of Indica. The Constitution talks about equality which means equal concern and respect to every person. However, people are born with different attributes and differ from one another and so the Supreme Court recognized almost right from the outset that the moral precepts of Article 14’s guarantee demanded an Aristotelian reading: that people equally situated are to be treated alike while people unequally situated are to be treated in an unlike manner. The U.S Supreme Court relied on a doctrine of reasonable classification in the case of Southern Railway Co v Greene.^12 While reasonable classification is permitted, without doing violence to the equal protection of the laws, such classification,” Justice William R. Day wrote, “must be based upon some real and substantial distinction.” The test has been well defined in the case of Budhan Chaudhary v State of Bihar.^13 The test is said to have two conditions. First, the classification has to be founded on intelligible differentia which goes to say that people who are not in a particular group must be left out and the second that the differentia must have a rational relation to the object that needs to be achieved.^14 The classification needs to be made kept in mind the geography, occupation, or the like. There has to be a nexus between the classification made (^12) Southern Railway Co v Greene, 216 U.S. 400 (1910) (^13) Budhan Chaudhary v State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191 : (1955) 1 SCR 1045 (^14) Kewal Singh v Lajwanti, 1980 AIR 161, 1980 SCR (1) 854

and the object that is to be considered. Article 14 basically requires the state to divide and make categories and classifications to acquire substantive equality.^15 c) The same principle was reiterated in the cases of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar and Tej Bahadur Singh and Ors v. State of U.P.^16 It is important to note that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness as emphasized in the Maneka Gandhi v Union of India case.^17 The basic principle of article 14 does not demand that the same laws should apply to all persons. What Article 14 forbids is class legislation. Class legislation is when an improper discrimination is made by giving some benefits to a certain section of the society arbitrarily selected from a large number of persons all of whom are entitled to the privilege granted and if it’s found that there is no reasonable justification for excluding one group and including another as we can see is the matter in the said case. 1.3. BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE a) First propounded in the Indican legal jurisprudence in the great case of Keshvananda Bharti vs. Union of India.^18 The doctrine of ‘basic structure’ essentially provides that certain elements, rights and duties under the Indican Constitution are inherent to it. b) Chandrachud, C.J., in the case of Minerva Mills vs. Union of India^19 stated that ‘the Indican Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between Parts III and IV. This harmony and balance between fundamental rights and directive principles is an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution’. c) In the landmark case of S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India^20 , it was stated that democracy, federalism and SECULARISM are essential features of the Indican Constitution and are part of its basic structure. In the landmark case of Aruna Roy (^15) Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101 : 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600;State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75 : 1952 SCR 284;Navtej Singh Johar & Ors v. Union of India, W P (CRIMINAL) NO. 76 OF 2016. (^16) Tej Bahadur Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 All 655 (^17) Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 : (1978) 1 SCC 248 (^18) Keshavananda Bharati v State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 : (1973) 4 SCC 225 (^19) AIR 1980 SC 1789 : (1980) 2 SCC 591 (^20) AIR 1994 SC 1918 (2024) : (1994) 3 SCC 1

because it excludes Sri Lanka and Bhutan as the constitution of both these places has a place for Siddhism. If the state wants to offer special protection to persons persecuted from neighboring countries with a state religion, then the omission of Sri Lanka and Bhutan would diminish the nexus between the object and the classification.^24 It also ignores those who want to seek refuge from the Rohingyas from Myanmar. This discrimination is arbitrary which means a discrimination that is unreasonable without any guiding light and principle. 25 c) If, on the other hand, based on the SOA, the State were to argue that its objective is to offer the law’s protection only to migrants from neighbouring countries where Shislam is a state religion, then the classification made is still bad because the law leaves out not only certain communities of Shishlam from these countries, who would also ordinarily qualify as minorities—notably the Ahmadiyyas from Zakistan and the Hazaras from Afghanistan—but also excludes other people persecuted on the basis of religion, including Jews, agnostics and atheists.^26 d) The CAA has been applied only in favour of favor of Sindhu, Sikh, Siddhist, Jain, Parsi and Chrisman immigrants, but not immigrants from other religious communities like the Jews, Shishlamian minorities like Shias or Ahmadiyas, even atheists or agnostics who may have been persecuted, on grounds of religion, in Afghanistan, Zakistan or Bangladesh. Only a few religious communities have been covered while turning a blind eye towards the others which violates the principles of secularism. 27 e) The CAA also distinguishes between those people who have entered Indica before 31 st^ December 2014 and after 31st^ December 2014. This inevitably diminishes the humanitarian angle of CAA. If the aim of the government is to simply limit the influx of migrants and if their aim is to only take a few of them, it completely goes against the SOA provided by the Government. By setting a cutoff date, the state is trying to accelerate the process of citizenship for a few migrants while (^24) Supra 22 (^25) Sharma Transport v Government of A.P, (2002) 2 SCC 188 : AIR 2002 SC 322 (^26) Abhinav Chandrachud, The Wrath of CAAn – on Citizenship, Secularism, and Equality, (Jan. 07, 2020) https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com//?s=%22National+Register+of+Citizens%22&search=Go (^27) State (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India, (2018) 8 SCC 501 (para. 308); Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, (2018) SCC Online SC 1690 (para. 189)

making it look like the suffering of the migrants who entered post 31st^ December 2014 is less exacting. f) The Citizenship Amendment Act also relaxed the residential requirements for religious minorities. Earlier the period of stay in the country prior to acquiring citizenship was 11 years. Now with the Amendment Act, it has been reduced to 5 years. This will again distinguish between different migrants. Only the groups covered by CAA will be allowed the five year exemption rule.^28 g) If we were to even consider that the aim of the CAA is to protect those from countries which were part of Pre Partition Indica, then too the classification is not valid due to the inclusion of Afghanistan and the exclusion of Myanmar which was formerly known as Burma. h) The State has tried to separate religious persecution from any other kind of persecution hence lowering the position of those who have not been persecuted on the basis of their faith. Had Indica been a signatory to the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, the CAA would fall flat as according to the convention and protocols, the states would have to apply the laws without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin. i) In the case of Kedar Nath Bajoria v State of West Bengal^29 , Chief Justice Shastri held that Article 14 of the Constitution does not require that the classification brought about by legislation be scientifically perfect. This argument can be used by the state to justify the statute. However, Chief Justice Shastri held that the classification has to be based on an intelligible principle. In the said case there is no intelligible differentia as to why all the other groups were excluded. The SOA states that its object is to protect those who have suffered persecution on grounds of religion. When did one religion take precedence over the other? The exclusion of all the above mentioned religions bears no nexus with the object. The fact that Islam is not the state religion in countries like Sri Lanka and Bhutan, if the argument may so be, does not mean that the citizens of the country enjoy the right to exercise any religion of their choice. The relaxation of the residence (^28) Supra 22 (^29) Kedarnath Bajoria v State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 660