Respo

It is urged that as held in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India 1981 (Supp.) SCC 87 that a public interest
litigation cannot be entertained where its object is to attain a political purpose, the present petition
is liable to be dismissed.

no fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated and, therefore, the present petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable. We are unable to accept the submission made.

https://www.refworld.org/cases,IND_SC,46b1c2eb2.html

Dr. Ernst Blofeld has filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of Selandia before
the Supreme Court of Selandia, challenging the vires of the Amendment Act as being violative of
principles of equality and discriminating against the Bantu by violating the principles of
secularism enshrined under the Constitution of Selandia.

the Prime Minister John Balboa addressed the nation stating that “The Citizenship (Amendment)
Bill, 2019 is not for the benefit of anyone but a penance against the injustice and wrongdoings in
the past.” Now, after Section 2(b)(i), a Proviso has been inserted by CAA, 2019 and it reads as
under :-

“Provided that any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian
community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before
31st day of December, 2014 and who has been exempted by the Central Government by or
under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or
from the application of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 or any rule or order made
thereunder, shall not be treated as illegal migrant for the purposes of this Act ;

Smt Archona Purnima Pramanik vs State Of Karnataka

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/46746234/

Article 11 provides that nothing in the foregoing provisions of Part-II shall derogate from
the power of Parliament to make any provision with respect to acquisition and termination
of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship.
It is competent for Parliament, in exercise of power conferred by Article 11 , to take away or
effect citizenship already acquired under other articles of Part-II of the , Constitution. This is
what was also held in Izhar Ahmad Khan vs. Union of India, 1962 AIR 1052.

Entry 17, list I Schedule VII of Constitution provides subject of “Citizenship, naturalisation and
aliens” and thus, power to make law in respect of citizenship is within the ambit of Parliament.

RAJAT GANGWAR VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — LNINDORD 2019 ALL
4104
Every violator of law has to be dealt with equally. The illustration given by petitioners about
Mohd. Shoaib, Advocate arrested by police would not help the petitioner in any manner, for the
reason that a person even if an advocate, would not get a licence to indulge in unlawful, illegal
and destructive activities. In order to enjoy own individual fundamental right of speech,
movement, assembly, no person, even if he is an Advocate, has a licence, liberty or privilege to
obstruct other innocent residents and citizens of State of U.P. in exercise of similar rights of their
own self and property. If any property, public or private is damaged by anyone in the garb of
exercising his fundamental right, such right ceases to be a valid exercise or enjoyment of
fundamental right but becomes an illegal, unlawful activity, which is punishable and actionable
in the manner provided in law.
We could have been in their position.
Religios persecution

Separate channel, apply for citzensp irrespective of children

Nrc in every country check security

PET
Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian PROOF?
Dr. Harlem Kanango also stated in his petition that the Resolution being passed was part of the
privileges being accorded to the members of the State Assembly in exercising their freedom of
speech and hence, cannot be deemed to constitute an event leading to breakdown of
constitutional machinery.

RAJAT GANGWAR VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — LNINDORD 2019 ALL
4104
maintain the State has every right to criticise a Central law that violates Articles
14 and 15 of the Constitution.

https://ezproxy.nujs.ac.in:2107/document/teaserdocument/?pdmfid=1523890&crid=df189dd5-
1d82-4712-b633-
28b61ea8a79f&pdteaserkey=h1&pdicsfeatureid=1523894&pditab=allpods&ecomp=s7z2k&earg
=sr0&prid=4d4148ac-5eb5-441f-a88f-0c23299f8958 Learned counsel for the petitioners stated
that protest and procession is against discriminatory amendment based on religion, inasmuch as,
members of other religion residing in aforesaid three countries viz. Pakistan, Bangladesh and
Afghanistan, who do not belong to religions mentioned in the provisions, added by way
of amendment by CAA, 2019 have been singled-out, only on the ground of religion, which is
not permissible in the Constitution and it is per se arbitrary and discriminatory, hence, to oppose
this discrimination founded only on religion, a large number of people at different places, have
protested, taken out processions, which have resulted at some places, some violence and
destructive activities. It is contended that petitioner is not, either supporting the amendment or
opposing it; he is also not looking into genuineness of protest, march and processions taken out
by individuals or groups of people, but what he is concerned about, is that every individual has a
fundamental right of speech, assembly and movement and such fundamental right of individuals
cannot be thwarted away by Executives by means of either resorting to restrictive provisions like
, Section 144 Cr.P.C. or by involving such individuals in various criminal cases, etc. He said that
individual fundamental rights are being breached with impunity by resorting to illegal arrest and
without following guidelines laid down by Supreme Court in the matters of arrest, etc.
in Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others 1994(4) SCC 260 , which read as under :

“1. An arrested person being held in custody is entitled, if he so requests to have one friend,
relative or other person who is known to him or likely to take an interest in his welfare told as
far as is practicable that he has been arrested and where is being detained.
2. The Police Officer shall inform the arrested person when he is brought to the police station of
this right.
3. An entry shall be required to be made in the Diary as to who was informed of the arrest. These
protections from power must be held to flow from Articles 21 and 22 (1) and enforced strictly.”

We are not making a law by-passing the Centre’s law. We have a federal system and
the Constitution puts no hurdles before any State Assembly from airing an opinion on an
issue of public importance. In the past too, Kerala Assembly has passed resolutions
against Acts passed in Parliament. In 1971, the Kerala Assembly passed a resolution
against the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA). In 2006 and in 2019, we
passed resolutions on certain provisions in Income Tax Act that included cooperative
banks also in the ambit of I-T,”

“The resolution is based on Rule 118 of the Kerala Assembly

that empowers a member or a Minister to move a resolution
relating to a matter of general public interest. This is the basic
legal logic behind our resolution. I had given a notice under rule
130 for a discussion on the matter. The government was ready
to bring a resolution of the same nature and that is why the
Chief Minister himself moved it,” Satheeshan, a former AICC
secretary, said.
He felt that the CAA is a clear case of violation of Articles 14
and 15 of the Constitution. “The impact of this violation can be
addressed by Article 13, which provides the remedy for laws
inconsistent with fundamental rights. The Preamble also
upholds secularism. The CAA violates the principle of
secularism too. The Supreme Court has made it clear in its
verdict on the Keshavananda Bharti case that no law should
violate the basic tenets of the Constitution,” Satheeshan said.
Not reasonable

According to him, the BJP’s argument that the provision is an

example for ‘reasonable classification’ will also not hold ground.
“The Supreme Court has clearly laid down the definition of
reasonable classification. Their interpretation of reasonable
classification will not stand legal scrutiny. Their argument of
positive discrimination also will not stand. They say that they
are providing citizenship, not denying it through the CAA. But
while doing so, they are keeping away persons from a particular
religion. In Assam, the NRC took away the citizenship of about
19 lakh people including Hindus. But through the CAA, the
Centre has ensured that Hindus among them will get citizenship
and it will be denied to Muslims. Isn’t this clear discrimination?
They have failed to explain the logic behind clubbing
Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan together. The Home
Minister has been giving different explanations for this. The
case of religious persecution in Myanmar, for example, is much
serious. Why we are excluding Myanmar? They have no
answers,” he said.
CAA is modelled on the 1935 German citizenship plan and the
1982 Myanmar Citizenship law. “Both resulted in genocide... of
Jews and Rohingya Muslims,” he said.

14 21 25