Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SYNOPSIS
The present Writ Petition is being filled by the Petitioners
assailing the unconstitutional act of the Respondent in
passing the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (Herein
after referred as Impugned Act). The Impugned Act in
question has raised serious doubts over the intentions of
the government in adhering to the constitution of India or
to say it clearly showcases the misunderstanding of the
respondent by passing the impugned Act by overshadowing
the mandate of the Article 14, 15 & 21 of the Constitution
of India.
Over the years, since the constitution has been written
and adopted in the country, it has been time and again
established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Constitution
stands above every and all actions of any form of
government and also that the preamble cannot be
overridden by any Act of the parliament. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court has also established that there cannot be
any action violating the basic principles adopted in the
preamble of the Constitution.
The present Impugned Act in question, that is the
Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 has raised various
controversies all over the country as the Act stands to be
anti- muslim community and anti- minority even on the
face of it. The Act has made a clear exclusion of
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
muslimscommunity in regards to the government policy of
giving citizenship to the migrants and refugees.
The Citizenship Act, 1955 believed in citizenship
as a unifying idea. Itshared identity is at the core of
citizenship and has been at the core since the time the
constitution was enacted in India. The Act has set
guidelines for providing citizenship to the migrants who
have migrated to India and there are further regulations for
the illegal migrants and includes all aspect of the law in
detail. The entire purpose of this Impugned Act is to
oppress a particular caste, that is muslim community. The
Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 provides the provisions
for giving Indian citizenship to the six minority communities
from Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. These six
communities are - Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, Christian
and Sikhs. This Act has exclusively excluded the Muslims
community which is entirely against the spirit of the
constitution and it is against the mandate of Article 15.
Constitution of India enshrines Fundamental rights
which cannot be violated by anybody, not even the
government, except for the exceptions given in the
Constitution itself. The importance of Fundamental rights
has been time and again reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and no action stands to be valid when any
fundamental right of anyone is in danger. Article 14 of the
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
Constitution of India has given a right to equality to all the
people, which means that there should be no discrimination
based on caste, creed, religion or any other form. This bill
by specifically excluding muslims community from the
category of citizenship has violated that very Fundamental
right. This exclusion cannot be merely seen as an exclusion
from a bill or exclusion to a small privilege, it has to be
seen and interpreted as an act of the respondent against
the very spirit of the Constitution, which has to stand tall in
every circumstance and no government or law made by any
government is above the Constitution.
The preamble of the constitution is the basic structure
of the constitution and cannot be overridden by any act of
the parliament. The preamble of the Constitution
establishes India as a secular state, which means that
every religion in India would be treated with same respect
and that the Constitution of India recognizes and gives
same rights to every person following any religion. Any Act
against the basic principles given by the preamble is not
valid and hence, unconstitutional. Theprovisions of the
Impugned Act infringes the very concept of the secularism
as laid down in the constitution and it is violative of the
Basic structure theory as pronounced by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in various judgments
held that the Fundamental Rights is a right given to the
citizens as well as the foreigners who resides in India or are
currently in India. Therefore, the contention of the
respondent that the fundamental right is not a right given
to the foreigners under the Constitution and therefore the
Act excluding the muslims community explicitly is not
unconstitutional as it does not talk about the muslim
citizens of the country, is entirely wrong.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
KesavanandaBharatiSripadagalvaru and Ors. v. State of
Kerala and Anr, (1973) 4 SCC 225 outlined the basic
structure doctrine of the constitution. The 13-
judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court deliberated
on the limitations, if any, of the powers of the elected
representatives of the people and the nature of
fundamental rights of an individual. In a sharply divided
verdict, by a margin of 7-6, the court held that while the
Parliament has "wide" powers, it did not have the power to
destroy or emasculate the basic elements or fundamental
features of the constitution.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. R.
Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918, while
discussing the concept of secularism, held:-
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
“146. These provisions by implication
prohibit the establishment of a theocratic
State and prevent the State either
identifying itself with or favouring any
particular religion or religious sect or
denomination. The State is enjoined to
accord equal treatment to all religions
and religious sects and denominations.”
“Secularism is a part of the basic
structure of the Constitution. The acts of
a State Government which are calculated
to subvert or sabotage secularism as
enshrined in our Constitution, can
lawfully be deemed to give rise to a
situation in which the Government of the
State cannot be carried on in accordance
with the provisions of the Constitution.”
The Act has been passed by the government with a
sheer motive of discriminating against the muslim
community with respect to the citizenship given to the
migrants or refugees and it is entirely unconstitutional as it
is against Article 14 of the Constitution of India and
therefore, should be held unconstitutional.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
1955 The Citizenship Act of 1955 was enacted with
the provisions regulating citizenship for the
migrants who have come to India.
2016 The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill was
presented in the LokSabha, but could not be
presented in the RajyaSabha.
09.12.2019 The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill was
presented in the LokSabha and passed with
a majority of 311 to 80 on 09.12.2019.
11.12.2019 The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill was
presented in the RajyaSabha and passed
with a majority of
.12.2019 The President of India signed the bill on
Hence the present Writ Petition
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
(ORDER XXXVIII, S.C.R, 2013)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO OF 2019
[A Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
read with order XXXVIII, Rules 1 & 2 of Supreme Court
Rules, 2013]
IN THE MATTER OF:
EHTESHAM HASHMI & ORS …PETITIONERS
Vs
UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDENT
[PAPER BOOK]
[For Index: Kindly See Inside]
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER:AKBAR SIDDIQUE
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
(ORDER XXXVIII, S.C.R, 2013)
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO OF 2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
EHTESHAM HASHMI & ORS …PETITIONERS
Vs
UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDENT
AND IN THE MATTER OF:-
1. EhteshamHashmi
S/o M. S. Hashmi
R/o A-28, Jangpura B,
New Delhi-110013
2. Ziya Us Salam
S/o Late Abdul Dayam
R/o C-83A, RajatVihar
Sector 62, Noida- 201014
3. Muneeb Ahmed Khan
S/o Masroor Ahmed Khan
R/o ShareefManzil, Ballimaran
Delhi-110006
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
4. Appurva Jain
D/o Subodh Kumar Jain
5th Year Law Student
R/o A-107, Shehnai- 2 Residency,
Indore, Madhya Pradesh- 452016
5. AdeelTalib
S/o TanvirTalib
R/o AizazManzil, Thakur Dwara
Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh- 250609 …PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1) Union Of India
Ministry of Law & Justice
Through Secretary
4th Floor, A- Wing, ShastriBhawan
New Delhi- 110001 …RESPONDENT
AND IN THE MATTER OF:-
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SEEKING A WRIT OR
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
MANDAMUS DECLARING “THE CITIZENSHIP
(AMENDMENT) ACT, 2019” AS ILLEGAL,
UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR BEING VIOLATIVE OF
ARTICLE 14, ARTICLE 15, & 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, AND TO PASS SUCH
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
FURTHER ODERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM
APPROPRIATE TO PROTECT LIFE, PERSONAL LIBERTY
AND DIGNITY OF THE MUSLIM MEN.
To,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS
COMPANION JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
1. This is a writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India praying for a writ or order or
direction seeking a writ or order or direction in the
nature of mandamus declaring the entire Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 2019 as illegal, unconstitutional for
being violative of Articles 14 of the constitution of
India, and to pass such further orders as this Hon’ble
Court may deem appropriate to protect life, personal
liberty and dignity of the muslimcommunity. This
petition is filed by the petitioners in their individual
capacity.
2. The present Writ Petition is being filled by the
Petitioners, wherein Petitioner No. 1 is a lawyer
practising in the Supreme Court of India, Delhi High
Court and various other courts and is well versed with
the law of the country. The petitioner No. 1 has been
involved with social work and legal aid societies in the
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
past and understands his moral duty towards the
citizens of this country. Petitioner No. 2 is a veteran
Journalist, associated with The Hindu for the last 20
years. He is now the designated Associate Editor also
he is an author and an activist. Petitioner No. 3
belongs from the family of the illustrious Hakeems of
Delhi, the family has had several freedom fighters
rightfrom the first struggle of Independence in 1857 to
1947. The petitioner no. 3 is an activist and volunteer
for many social causes. Petitioner No. 4 is a 5th Year
Law student of Symbiosis Law School, Noida and
belongs to the Jain community and understands the
law, but also understands her morale duty of brining
the arbitrariness of the government to notice of this
Hon’ble Court. Petitioner No. 5 is a practicing advocate
in Delhi and belongs from the family of Nawabs of
Baghpat and his family has contributed immensely in
the freedom struggle before Independence of
India.The respondent in the present petition has
passed the Impugned Act, 2019 in the parliament. The
provisions of the Act are arbitrary and immensely
discriminating against Muslim community. The
provisions of the Act clearly make an exclusion of the
Muslim community in any sort of citizenship rights for
the migrants and refugees. Any discrimination against
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
any person is against the Fundamental rights given
under the Constitution of India. It is humbly submitted
that it is the duty of the petitioner to bring to notice of
this Hon’ble Court the arbitrary and unconstitutional
provisions of the Act passed by the parliament with a
sheer intention of being anti- muslim and anti-
minority.
1. FACTS OF THE CASE
1.1 That the present petition has been filed by the
petitioner against the respondent for completely
ignoring the constitution which is the basis for any
law made in the country and making a law which is
in hole arbitrary and biased and unconstitutional.
1.2 That the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 was
passed by the LokSabha on 09.12.2019 by a
majority of 311 to 80 and was further presented in
the RajyaSabha, where the bill was passed on
11.12.2019 by a majority of ___ to ___. The
president gave his consent and signed the bill on
__.12.2019.
1.3 That the first citizenship act was passed in the year
1955 which laid down the provisions concerning the
policy of the government in giving citizenship to the
migrants who have come to India and have been
settled here for a particular time as laid down by
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
the act. It included people of all the religion without
any bias and discrimination.
1.4 The Act in question has made a clear exclusion of
the muslims in any citizenship rights for the
migrants and refugees. The present Act in proviso
to section 1 clearly states that any person belonging
to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian
community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or
Pakistan would not be treated as illegal migrants
under the Act, which means that any person
belonging to the Muslim community who comes to
India from these states would be treated as Illegal
migrants and this categorisation is only excluding
the Muslim community from the citizenship rights
for the migrants. The copy of the Impugned Act is
marked and annexed as ANNEXURE- P/1.
1.5 That there has been no steps taken by the
government in changing the very controversial
provisions of the Act and cater to the demands of
the public.
2. That in order to prevent this government from going
against the Constitution and enacting the Act, the
Petitioner has no other alternative remedy except to
invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this
Hon’bleSupreme Court under Article 32 of the
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
Constitution of India, on the following grounds
amongst other:
GROUNDS:
2.1 BECAUSE the provisions of the present Act in
question are against the basic structure theory as
pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The
preamble of the constitution has laid down the basic
structure for the constitution and overrides anything
and everything done in violation of the principles
laid down by the preamble. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court has laid down the basic structure theory,
which says that any law in violation of the basic
structure of the constitution is unconstitutional. The
very same preamble gives the principle of
secularism, which means that India is a secular
state. Secularism means that every religion is
respected and treated in the same way and the
people of every religion stays together without any
discrimination. The Act in question excludes only
the Muslim community from any citizenship rights
to the migrants, which is violative of the principle of
secularism as it is discriminative of one religious
community.
2.2 BECAUSE the constitution under Article 14 gives a
fundamental right of equality to its people. It states
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
that there will not be any discrimination on the
basis of caste, religion, creed, etc. Fundamental
right of any person given by the constitution cannot
be violated or infringed by other person or by any
government as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
at various occasions. The provisions of the Act
clearly set a platform for discrimination against the
muslim migrants in proviso to section 1 of the Act.
That the provisions of the Act are violative of the
right to equality given under the constitution as it
does not adhere to the condition set under the
article to treat every person equally, wherein, under
this Act there is a huge discrimination against the
Muslims. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
E P Royappavs State of Tamil Nadu, 1974 AIR 555in
1973 observed that “equality is a dynamic concept
with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be
cribbed, cabined and confined within the traditional
and doctrinaire limits. From the positivistic point of
view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact,
equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies…
where the act is arbitrary, it is implicit that it is
unequal both according to political logic and
constitutional law and is therefore violative of
Article 14.”
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
2.3 BECAUSE the fundamental rights are rights given to
the citizens of the country as well as the foreigners
under the constitution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
has established with the help of a judgment that the
fundamental rights are also the rights of the
foreigners and applies to any and every person who
is in India. That the contention of the government
that the fundamental rights are not given to the
foreigners and thus the provisions of the Act are
unconstitutional is entirely wrong. The provisions of
the Act apply to the migrants and as established by
the Supreme Court the fundamental rights are also
the rights of the foreigners and the provisions of the
bill violate the right to equality given under the
constitution, therefore, the provisions of the Act are
unconstitutional.
2.4 BECAUSE Articles 5 to 11 of the constitution give
details of various categories of persons who are
entitled to citizenship. Article 11 empowers
Parliament to regulate citizenship. But this power
given to the parliament does not mean that
Parliament through an ordinary law can destroy the
fundamental values or the basic structure of the
constitution. The religious basis of citizenship would
be a negation not only of secularism, but also of
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
liberalism, equality and justice. This Act in whole
surpasses the entire preamble.
2.5 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
KesavanandaBharatiSripadagalvaru and Ors. v.
State of Kerala and Anr, (1973) 4 SCC 225 outlined
the basic structure doctrine of the constitution. The
13-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court
deliberated on the limitations, if any, of the powers
of the elected representatives of the people and the
nature of fundamental rights of an individual. In a
sharply divided verdict, by a margin of 7-6, the
court held that while the Parliament has "wide"
powers, it did not have the power to destroy or
emasculate the basic elements or fundamental
features of the constitution.
2.6 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. R.
Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918, while
discussing the concept of secularism, held:-
“146. These provisions by implication prohibit the
establishment of a theocratic State and prevent the
State either identifying itself with or favouring any
particular religion or religious sect or denomination.
The State is enjoined to accord equal treatment to
all religions and religious sects and denominations.”
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
“Secularism is a part of the basic structure of the
Constitution. The acts of a State Government which
are calculated to subvert or sabotage secularism as
enshrined in our Constitution, can lawfully be
deemed to give rise to a situation in which the
Government of the State cannot be carried on in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.”
2.7 BECAUSE this Act has already attracted a lot of
criticism from all around the country and makes the
inhabitant of India and the muslim citizens of the
country fear the action of the ruling government.
This Act even before coming into action had created
a sense of fear amongst the Muslims community of
the country and a diverse country like ours where
hundreds of religions reside in one country does not
have any place for discrimination against one
particular community. For centuries India has been
a country of all religions and it should remain like
that without any fear for any community. This Act in
question is not unconstitutional but dangerous, as it
will surely damage India’s standing in the comity of
nations.
2.8 BECAUSE the Respondent cannot override the
constitution which has given them power in the first
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
place and cannot ignore the precedence set by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
2.9 BECAUSE many governments since the
Independence of India and since the time the
Constitution has been adopted and enacted have
worked long and hard and had played a major role
in the formation and betterment of our democracy.
That by bringing this act, the present governance is
dematerialising the development of our democracy.
2.10 BECAUSE India is a democracy and not an
autocracy that the government can work on its own
without looking out to the citizens of the country.
The democratic form of government makes it a duty
of the government to abide by its constitution and
no act can be validated by any justification if it is
against the very constitution of the country.
3. That the Petitioner is left with no other alternative
remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court by way
of filling this present Writ Petition under Articles 32 of
the Constitution of India.
4. That this Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to
entertain the present petition, as this Hon’ble court
has extra ordinary power of judicial review of the acts
passed by the parliament.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
5. That the present Petitioner has not filed any other
petition in any High Court or the Supreme Court of
India on the subject matter of the present petition.
6. That the annexures attached with the present Petition
are true copies of their respective originals.
7. That the present Petition is being filed in the most
bona fide manner, as advised by law.
8. That the petitioner has not filed any other similar
petition before this Hon'ble Court or any other courts
for the similar relief.
9. That the petitioner will bear the costs of the petition if
this Hon’ble Court directs any imposition of costs in
this regard.
PRAYER:
In view of the abovementioned facts and circumstances and
in the interest of justice, it is most respectfully prayed that
this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
A. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in
nature of mandamus declaring that “The
Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019”
unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the
constitution of India and hence unconstitutional
and unenforceable or;
B. Pass any such further order or direction as this
Hon’ble Court may in the facts and circumstances
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
deem fit against the respondents in the facts and
circumstances of the present case;
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE
PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL
EVER PRAY
Date
Place Through
AKBAR SIDDIQUE
Counsel for the Petitioner
C-15, BASEMENT, NIZAMUDDIN EAST
DELHI-110013, 981010736
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO OF 2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
EHTESHAM HASHMI & ORS …PETITIONERS
Vs
UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT
I, EhteshamHashmi, S/o M.S. Hashmi, aged about 36
years, R/o A-28, Jangpura B, New Delhi-110013,do hereby
solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:
1. I am one of the petitioners in the above matter and I
am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances
of the case and competent to swear the present
affidavit.
2. I have read and understood the contents of the
accompanying writ petition Synopsis and List of Dates
from Page No. ___ to ____ and also the
accompanying writ petition (page No. ___ to ___)
which have been drafted under my instructions and I
say that the contents of the same are true and
correct.
3. I say that the contents of the petition are based
through the knowledge derived by various newspaper
and from personal sources of the petitioner.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
4. I say that the Annexure P-1 annexed with the petition
is true and copy of its original.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified at ________ on this day of , 2019 that
the contents of the para 1 to 9 of this affidavit are true to
correct to my knowledge and belief and nothing material
has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
INDEX
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
S. No. PARTICULARS PAGE
NO.
1. Court Fee
2. Listing Performa
3. Cover Page of Paper Book
4. Index of Record of Proceedings
5. Limitation Report prepared by the
Registry
6. Synopsis & List of Dates
7. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) UNDER
ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ALONG
WITH AFFIDAVIT
8. Appendix
Article 14 of the Constitution of
India
9. ANNEXURE P-1
The copy of the Citizenship
(Amendment) Bill, 2019
10. F/M
11. Vakalatnama
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
(ORDER XXXVIII, S.C.R, 2013)
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO OF 2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
EHTESHAM HASHMI & ORS …PETITIONERS
Vs
UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDENT
COURT FEES
Petitioner
Date
Place
EHTESHAM HASHMI
C-15, BASEMENT, NIZAMUDDIN EAST
DELHI-110013, 981010736
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
(ORDER XXXVIII, S.C.R, 2013)
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO OF 2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
EHTESHAM HASHMI & ORS …PETITIONERS
Vs
UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDENT
APPLICATION FOR STAY
AND IN THE MATTER OF:
To,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS
COMPANION JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH-
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners against
the respondent for passing the Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 2019 which is entirely against the
mandate of Article 14, 15 & 21 of Constitution of India
and therefore unconstitutional and illegal.
2. That the entire facts have already been stated in the
accompanying Writ Petition in detail and the same
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. The
petitioners crave leave and permission of this
Hon'ble Court to refer and rely upon the same at the
time of hearing of the present application as well.
3. That the present Impugned Act should not be
implemented until the question of the constitutionality
of the Act is decided by this Hon’ble Court.
4. That the present application is being filed bona fide
and in the interested of justice.
PRAYER
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
(a) Pass a Stay order for the Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 2019.
(b) pass any other order/orders that this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of this case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS PETITIONER IS IN
DUTY BOUND SHALL EVERY PRAY.
New Delhi Filed on:
FILED BY:
AKBAR SIDDIQUE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS
PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING
The Case Pertains to:
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
1. Central Act: (Title) Constitution Of India
2. Section Article 14
3. Central Rule: (Title) N/A
4. Rule No(s). N/A
5. State Act: (Title) N/A
6. Section: N/A
7. State Rule: (Title) N/A
8. Rule No(s): N/A
9. Impugned Common Final
Order: (Date)
Constitutional Validity
of Citizenship
(Amendment) Act,
2019
10. Impugned Common Final
Order/ Decree: (Date) N/A
11. High Court: (Name) N/A
12. Names of Judges: N/A
13. Tribunal/Authority N/A
1. Nature of Matter:- Constitutional
2. (a) Petition/Appellant No.: EhteshamHashmi&Ors
(b) Email Id:- N/A
3. (a) Respondent Union Of India
(b) Email Id:- N/A
(c) Mobile No:- N/A
4. (a) Main Category Classification:
(b) Sub Classification
5. Not to be Listed Before: N/A
6. (a) Similar disposed of matter with
citation, if any and case details; N/A
(b) Similar pending matter with case
details:
N/A
7. Criminal Matter: NO
a. Whether Accused/Convict has
surrendered
N/A
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
b. F.I.R No. N/A
c. Police Station N/A
d. Sentence Awarded N/A
e. Period of Sentence undergone
including the period of
detention/custody undergone
N/A
8. Land Acquisition Matters:- No
a. Date of Section 4 Notification: N/A
b. Date of Section 6 Notification: N/A
c. Date of Section 17 Notification: N/A
9. Tax Matter: State the tax Effect N/A
10. Special Category (First
Petitioner/Appellant Only)
Senior Citizen > 65
years: N/A
SC/ST: N/A
Women Child: N/A
Disabled: N/A
Legal Aid Case: N/A
In Custody: N/A
11. Vehicle Number (in case of
Motor Accident Claim matters): N/A
FILED BY:-
[ AKBAR SIDDIQUE]
Filed On:- __________ Code no 2785
Advocate for the Petitioner
WWW.LIVELAW.IN