Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Pakistani Christian's Plea Seeking Citizenship Under CAA, Challenging 2014 Cut-Off Citing Persecution

A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan disposed of the petition, granting the Petitioner liberty to approach the Bombay High Court for appropriate relief.

Advocate on Record Ashish Pandey represented the Petitioner.

According to the petition, the Petitioner was born in Goa but acquired Pakistani citizenship by birth. He resided in Karachi until 2016, and he entered India on a valid Long-Term Visa. The petition states that he was compelled to flee Pakistan due to persistent religious persecution against Christians. It reads, “The Petitioner was compelled to leave Pakistan due to persistent and targeted acts of religious persecution inflicted upon him on account of his Christian faith. In particular, there was a complete absence of institutional support and protection from law enforcement authorities in Pakistan, rendering any lawful remedy inaccessible.”

It is submitted that the Petitioner has been residing in India lawfully and continuously since 2016 and has fully assimilated into Indian society. His Long-Term Visa, however, is due to expire on 20 June 2025. The petition states that deportation would violate his fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. It states, “The Petitioner bona fide apprehends that in the event of deportation to Pakistan, he is likely to face imminent threat to his life and personal liberty owing to the real and immediate danger of religious persecution in that country.”

The petition also challenges the constitutionality of the 31 December 2014 cut-off date prescribed under Section 6B of the Citizenship Act, 1955, as amended by the 2019 Act. The Petitioner argued that this classification, based solely on the date of entry, is arbitrary and discriminatory. The petition states, “Inasmuch as the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019 discriminates between those who have entered India before 2014 and those who have come after 2014, the same is a violation of the Right to Equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India to citizens as well as non-citizens.”

It is further submitted that the cut-off bears no rational nexus to the object of the amendment, which was to provide humanitarian protection to persecuted minorities from neighbouring countries. As stated in the petition, “There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the situation when it comes to specifically the Christian minority in Pakistan has improved in the least. Hence, it can be stated with some certitude that the basis for the differentiation has no nexus whatsoever with the object of the Act that is sought to be achieved.”

The Petitioner also relied on the constitutional principle of non-refoulement, arguing that protections under Article 21 are not restricted to citizens. It states, “Even a ‘foreigner’ is entitled to protection of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of our Constitution. The far-reaching and myriad protections afforded by Article 21… would indubitably encompass the right of non-refoulement.”

In addition to seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality of the cut-off, the Petitioner also prayed for extension of his Long-Term Visa. A representation filed by his wife, who is stated to be an Indian citizen, was annexed to the petition, which reads, “He is a Roman Catholic which being a minority community is heavily persecuted in Pakistan. He cannot travel to Pakistan to renew his passport as he apprehends danger to his life and liberty, therefore, he ought to be granted extension of his Long-Term Visa.”

The Supreme Court did not go into the merits of the challenge. The petition was disposed of with liberty to approach the Bombay High Court for appropriate relief.

Cause Title: Jude Mendes v. Union of India (W.P. (C) No. 569/2025)

Appearance:

Petitioner: AOR Ashish Pandey; Advocates Raghav Awasthi, Mukesh Kumar, Akash, Chanchal, Anshuman Singh Khangarot, Aditya Mishra