Recommendations and Press Release

By- Yogi Adityanath (CM Uttar Pradesh)

I. In the case of superintendent and remembrance of legal affairs v. Girish Kumar it was
held that under inclusion does not deny the equal protection of laws under Art. 14.
Here it has been justified that under inclusion is no ground for violation of Art. 14 for
this reason CAA is constitutional.

II. Article 11 also confers power in the hands of Parliament to make any provision with
respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating
to citizenship. The competent legislature has all the rights to devise its own legislative
policy with respect to the issues concerning the citizenship. It was held in the case of
Izhar Ahmad Khan v. Union of India for this reason CAA is constitutional.

III. It was held in the case of State of M.P. v. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd , “the
legislature has always the power to make special laws to attain particular objects and
for that purpose has authority to select or classify persons, objects or transactions
upon which the law is intended to operate and for this reason CAA is termed as
constitutional.

IV. Under Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a police has the power
to arrest a person, without an order from the Magistrate. Similarly, Sections 47 and 48
of the CrPC give police officers power to "pursue such person into any place in India"
who the police have the reason to believe that the person has entered or is hiding in
any place. Section 46 of the CrPC allows police to use force to arrest a person who
forcibly resists police action and therefore all the arrests made by the police in the
Riots is Valid and not arbitrary.

V. All the arrest were made under the law of “ The prevention of damage to Public
Property Act, 1984 which punishes anyone with “ who commits mischief by doing
any act in respect of any public property with a jail of 5 years and fine or both.
 VI. The Latin maxim ‘salus populi suprema lex’ the safety of the people is the supreme
law and hence quoted by Supreme Court in many judgement makes NRC in Assam
valid and lawful.

VII. Detention is a precautionary measure. The illegal immigrants were a threat to the
culture. The state has acted in accordance with the doctrine of parens patriae, to
conserve its culture and protect the state from external aggression and Hence the
Detention is not arbitrary.

VIII. Moreover no legal right has be curbed of the people honourable supreme court in the
case of Simranjeet Singh Mann v. Union of India “if the accused or convict is under
no disability and yet does not approach the court, any other person cannot do so on his
behalf”. And alternative remedy does not exhaust as petition directly under the article
32 to the Supreme Court whereas it should have approached the high court first under
article 226 and should have further appealed under article 136.

IX. The act of detentions of the immigrants is only done after the due process followed
under Principles of Natural Justice including the hearing rule (Audi AlteramPartem
Rule) and the Bias Rule (Nemo Iudex in Propria Causa); the judicial scrutiny
provided the right to be heard by the Foreigner’s Tribunal appointed by the Central
Government, and the High Court of India, and the final appeal to the Supreme Court
of India