RIZVI COLLEGE OF LAW

MOOT COURT 2018

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Special Leave Petition filed under

Article 136 of the Constitution of
India

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (s) NO. 38 OF 2018

(Rizvi Law Moot Court 2018)

1. Mr. Mohd. Ilyas … Petitioner

Versus
1. Union of India … Respondents

Most Respectfully Submitted to The Chief

Justice of India and other Hon’ble Judges
of the Supreme Court of India

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Mr. Mohd Ilyas V Union of India (Memorial On behalf of Respondent) Page 1

 RIZVI COLLEGE OF LAW

MOOT COURT 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sr. No Particulars Page No.
1. Cover page 1
2. Table of contents 2
3. List of abbreviations 3
4. Index of authorities
5. Statement of jurisdiction
6. Statement of Issues
7. Statement of Facts
8. Arguments Advanced
9. Prayers

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS
Sr. No. Abbreviation Full Form
1. AIR All India Reporter
2. Art. Article
3. Anr. Another
4. CJI Chief Justice of India

Mr. Mohd Ilyas V Union of India (Memorial On behalf of Respondent) Page 2

 RIZVI COLLEGE OF LAW

MOOT COURT 2018

5. DPSP Directive Principles of State Policy

6. Govt. Government
7. HC High /court
8. SG State Government
9. Pg. Page
10. SCC Supreme Court Cases
11. Sec. Section
12. Cri L J Criminal Law Journal
13. WP` Writ Petition

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Sr. No. Nature of Particulars of Authorities
Authorities
1. The Constitution of India
2. Statute The Citizenship Act, 1955
3. Statute The Citizenship Rules, 1956
4. Statute
5. Statute
6. Statute
7. Judgement (1967) 2 SCR 401

Mr. Mohd Ilyas V Union of India (Memorial On behalf of Respondent) Page 3

 RIZVI COLLEGE OF LAW

MOOT COURT 2018

8. Judgement 1971 AIR 1093

Mr. Mohd Ilyas V Union of India (Memorial On behalf of Respondent) Page 4

 RIZVI COLLEGE OF LAW

MOOT COURT 2018

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
1. The Constitution of India, under Article 136, has vested the Supreme
Court of India, with power to grant special leave, to appeal against
any judgment or order or decree in any matter or cause, passed or
made by any Court/tribunal in the territory of India. It is to be used
in case any substantial constitutional question of law is involved, or
gross injustice has been done.
136. Special Leave to Appeal by the Supreme Court

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme

Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from
any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the
territory of India
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment,
determination, sentence or order passed or made by any court or
tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed
Forces.
2. The present appeal arises from an order passed by the Learned Civil
Court, dismissing the Appellant’s suit against the Respondent assailing
the Respondent’s order dismissing the Appellant’s representation
under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The Appellant hence
states that this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the
present S.L.P.
STATEMENT OF FACTS

Mr. Mohd Ilyas V Union of India (Memorial On behalf of Respondent) Page 5

 RIZVI COLLEGE OF LAW

MOOT COURT 2018

1. The Appellant was born on 1st May 1934 at Hapur, Meerut where
he domiciled for about 15 years. The Appellant shifted to Delhi in
the year 1949, where he continued to live with his sister till March
1950.
2. Due the communal riots that ensued in the March of 1950, fearing
for their lives, The Appellant and his sister’s family fled for
Pakistan. The Appellant’s family, however, continued to reside at
Hapur, Meerut.
3. The Appellant exhausted every possible legal way of returning to
India, but he was always directed that he could not do so unless he
applies for a Pakistani passport.
4. The Appellant applied for and obtained a Pakistani passport on
_____. The Appellant then obtained Indian Visa and went on to visit
his family in Meerut
5. The Respondents took steps to deport the Appellant back to
Pakistan, as he overstayed his Visa permit.
6. The Appellant preferred to make a representation under Section 9(2)
of the Citizenship Act
7. The Respondent dismissed the Applicant’s representation without
giving him a hearing which he prayed for in the representation.
8. The Appellant states that the act of the Respondent of arbitrarily
rejecting the Appellant’s representation without giving him an
opportunity of being heard is one that is contrary to the principles of
Natural Justice
9. The Appellant filed a Suit against the Respondents in a Civil Court,
which was dismissed. Hence, this Appeal.

Mr. Mohd Ilyas V Union of India (Memorial On behalf of Respondent) Page 6

 RIZVI COLLEGE OF LAW

MOOT COURT 2018

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Issue No. I

Whether the Respondents act of dismissing the Appellant’s representation

without giving due opportunity to be heard is contrary to the principles of
natural justice?

Mr. Mohd Ilyas V Union of India (Memorial On behalf of Respondent) Page 7

 RIZVI COLLEGE OF LAW

MOOT COURT 2018

Issue No. II

Whether the learned trial court ought erred in it’s interpretation of the 3rd
Schedule to the Citizenship Rules, 1956?

Issue No. III

Whether the Appellant voluntarily and willingly obtained a Pakistani Passport,

and thereby surrendered Indian citizenship?

Issue No. IV

What orders?

Mr. Mohd Ilyas V Union of India (Memorial On behalf of Respondent) Page 8

 RIZVI COLLEGE OF LAW

MOOT COURT 2018

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

THE PETITIONER MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH AS UNDER:

1. The Appellants have filed the present Appeal before this Hon’ble court
inter alia against the order passed by the learned Civil Court in the
Appellant’s Suit. The Respondents submit that Appellants had filed a Suit
before the Learned Trial Court assailing the Respondent’s order
dismissing the Appellant’s representation filed under Section 9(2) of the
Citizenship Act.

2. The Respondents state that the facts of the present case in nutshell is as
under:

a. The Appellant was born in India in the year 1934.

b. The Appellant shifted to Pakistan in the year 1950

c. The Appellant thereafter applied for and obtained a Pakistani

Passport on 20th August 1953.

d. The Appellant then went on to apply for and obtain an Indian Visa
for a period of three months.

e. However, the Appellant overstayed the granted period, and hence,

the Respondents took necessary steps to deport the Appellant to
Pakistan.

f. The Appellant filed a representation under Section 9(2) of the

Citizenship Act, 1955.

g. The Respondents proceeded to deal with the purported

Mr. Mohd Ilyas V Union of India (Memorial On behalf of Respondent) Page 9

 RIZVI COLLEGE OF LAW

MOOT COURT 2018

representation, and finding no merit, dismissed the same.

h. The Appellants went on to challenge the said order by filing a Suit

in the Trial Court, which was then dismissed.

i. The Appellant preferred a first and a second appeal against the

order of dismissal of his suit, both of which were dismissed.

j. Hence, this Appeal.

3. The Respondent submits that the sole ground of the present appeal is that
the Appellant was not given an opportunity to be heard and that the
impugned order is contrary to the principles of natural justice.

4. The Respondent most respectfully submits that the said ground opted by
the Appellant is baseless and lacks substance, as the representation in
itself was the opportunity of being heard before the order of deportation
could be executed. The Respondent states that the mere fact that the
Appellant filed the representation goes on to defeat his ground of not
being heard by the Respondents.

5. The Respondents most respectfully submit that the courts are unanimous
on the point that oral or personal hearing is not an integral part of fair
hearing unless circumstances so exceptional that without oral hearing a
person cannot put up an effective defence. Therefore, where complex
legal and technical questions are involved or where the stakes are very
high, oral hearing shall become a part of fair hearing. Thus, in the
absence of a statutory requirement for oral hearing, the matter can be
decided taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of every
case. In Union of India v J. P. Mitter 1the court refused to quash the order
1
1971 AIR 1093
Mr. Mohd Ilyas V Union of India (Memorial On behalf of Respondent) Page 10
 RIZVI COLLEGE OF LAW

MOOT COURT 2018

of the President of India in a dispute relating to the age of high Court

judge on the ground that the President did not grant oral hearing even on
request. The court was of the view that when the person has been given
an opportunity to submit his case in writing, there is no violation of the
principles of natural justice if oral hearing is not granted.

6. The Respondents further state that the Central Government has, under
Section 18 (1) of the Citizenship act, framed the Citizenship Rules, 1956
which came into force on July 7, 1956.

7. The Respondents submit that Rule 30 of the Citizenship Rules provide as

under:

30. Authority to determine acquisition of citizenship of another country:

(1) If any question arises as to whether, when or how any person has
acquired the citizenship of another country, the authority to determine such
question shall, for the purpose of section 9(2), be the Central Government.

(2) The Central Government shall, in determining any such question,

have due regard to the rules of evidence specified in Schedule III.

8. The Respondents most humbly submit Schedule III further sets out the
rules referred to in Rule 30 (2) above. The Relevant clauses of the
schedule are recreated as under:

(1) Where it appears to the Central Government that a citizen of India

has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of any other country, it
may require him to prove within such period as may be fixed by it
in this behalf, that he has not voluntarily acquired the citizenship
of that country, and the burden of proving that he has not so

Mr. Mohd Ilyas V Union of India (Memorial On behalf of Respondent) Page 11

 RIZVI COLLEGE OF LAW

MOOT COURT 2018

acquired such citizenship shall be on him.

(2) For the purpose of determining any question relating to the

acquisition a by an Indian citizen of the citizenship of any other
country, the Central Government make such references it thinks fit
in respect of that question or of any matter relating thereto, to its
embassy in that country or to the government of that country and
act on any report or information received in pursuance of such
reference.

(3) The fact that a citizen of India has obtained on any date a passport
from the government of any other country shall be conclusive proof
of his voluntarily acquired the citizenship of that country before
that date. [emphasis supplied]

9. The Respondents hence state and submit that Clause 3 above makes it
abundantly clear that the Appellant’s representation did not survive, and
given the fact that the Appellant had acquired a Pakistani Passport, there
was no need of any other proof as this was conclusive enough to
determine the Appellant’s claim under Section 9 (2).

10.The Respondent submits that this Hon’ble court has, in Syed Khwaja
Moinuddin v Government of India & Ors2 held that on a representation
made by a person, the Government is not called upon to make any
detailed enquiry when the provisions of Paragraph 3 of Schedule III of
the Citizenship Rules, namely that the authority must regard obtaining of
a foreign passport on a particular date as conclusive proof that the Indian
citizen had voluntarily acquired the citizenship of another country before

2
(1967) 2 SCR 401
Mr. Mohd Ilyas V Union of India (Memorial On behalf of Respondent) Page 12
 RIZVI COLLEGE OF LAW

MOOT COURT 2018

that date.

11.The Respondent states that it is the Appellant’s case that he had applied
for and obtained the Pakistani passport. If he was an Indian citizen that
happened to be in Pakistan, the appropriate course for him was to apply
for entry permit from the Indian High Commission at Karachi. It is no
where the case of the Appellant that he was compelled by force to obtain
a passport from Pakistan, nor that he was a victim of any fraud.

12.It is therefore the Respondent’s submission that the present appeal before
this Hon’ble Court lacks substance and hence ought to be dismissed with
costs.

PRAYERS
THE PETITIONER MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYS AS
UNDER:
1. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to set side the impugned
order of the Trial Court.

2. That the Respondents be directed to reconsider the Appellant’s

claim under Section 9(2) by giving him an opportunity to make
his case;

Mr. Mohd Ilyas V Union of India (Memorial On behalf of Respondent) Page 13

 RIZVI COLLEGE OF LAW

MOOT COURT 2018

3. That the Respondent be ordered and decreed to pay to the

Appellant the costs of this Appeal; and

4. That in the interim, till the time that the Appellant’s claim of
citizenship is decided, he be allowed to reside with his family
in India

5. For such further and other reliefs as the nature and

circumstances of the case may require.

Mr. Mohd Ilyas V Union of India (Memorial On behalf of Respondent) Page 14