On 12 June 2025, a Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan of the Supreme Court of India declined to entertain a plea filed by a Pakistani Christian seeking Indian citizenship under the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019. The petitioner, who entered India in 2016 on a Long-Term Visa, argued that he fled religious persecution in Pakistan and that the cut-off date of 31 December 2014 in the CAA was discriminatory and violated his Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
The plea also raised concerns under Article 21, asserting that deportation would expose him to serious threats to life and liberty. Emphasizing the principle of non-refoulement, the petitioner argued that India’s constitutional protections extend even to non-citizens. Despite these claims, the Supreme Court refused to examine the constitutional validity of the 2014 cut-off date under the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 and instead granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Bombay High Court for appropriate relief.
Read Also: Visually Impaired Eligible for Judicial Services: SC
Background of the Case Under the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019
The case titled Jude Mendes v. Union of India came before the Supreme Court of India and was listed on 12 June 2025. The petition was filed by Jude Mendes, a Pakistani Christian who fled religious persecution in Pakistan and entered India in 2016 on a valid Long-Term Visa. Mendes sought Indian citizenship under the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019, which allows persecuted minorities from neighbouring countries to apply for Indian nationality but only if they entered India before 31 December 2014.
In his petition, the Pakistani Christian claimed that he was born in Goa but later acquired Pakistani citizenship by birth and lived in Karachi until 2016. He argued that due to persistent threats and religious violence against Christians in Pakistan, he had no choice but to flee to India. The petitioner stated that the Indian government’s refusal to consider his plea under the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 due to the cut-off date was unjust and violated his Right to Equality under Article 14.
Jude Mendes also submitted that he had been lawfully residing in India for several years, had fully integrated into Indian society, and that deportation to Pakistan would expose him to serious danger. He invoked Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, emphasizing that even non-citizens have the right to life and personal liberty. He further relied on the international humanitarian principle of non-refoulement, stating that returning him to Pakistan would breach India’s constitutional and moral duty to protect refugees under the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019.
Additionally, the petition included a representation from the petitioner’s wife, who is an Indian citizen, requesting that his Long-Term Visa, which is due to expire on 20 June 2025, be extended in view of the genuine and immediate risk of religious persecution he would face if forced to return to Pakistan. However, the Supreme Court chose not to examine the constitutional challenge to the CAA cut-off date and instead directed the petitioner to seek relief from the Bombay High Court.
Read Also: Two-finger Test Condemned by Supreme Court Ruling
Applicable Legal Sections in Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 Case
- Article 14: Right to Equality (Indian Constitution): The petitioner challenged the cut-off date of 31 December 2014 under the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019, arguing that it violates Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law. He claimed that denying citizenship to persecuted minorities like Pakistani Christians who entered India after this date is arbitrary and discriminatory. Every person, including foreigners, is entitled to equal treatment by the law. The petitioner argued that the law treats people differently just because of when they entered India, which is unfair.
- Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Indian Constitution): The petitioner stated that deporting him to Pakistan, where he faces a real threat of religious persecution, would violate his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. In this Section no one, not even a foreigner, can be sent to a place where their life or freedom is in danger. The petitioner argued that his deportation would be a violation of this basic right.
- Principle of Non-Refoulement (Implied under Article 21): Though not directly mentioned in Indian law, the principle of non-refoulement is a part of international refugee law was relied upon in this case. The petitioner claimed that sending him back to a country where he is at risk of harm goes against this principle, which is protected by Article 21 in Indian constitutional interpretation. This principle means you cannot send someone back to a country where they are likely to be harmed or persecuted. The petitioner, a Pakistani Christian, said India has a duty to protect him from such danger.
- Section 6B: Citizenship Act, 1955 (Inserted by the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019): This section lays down the conditions for granting Indian citizenship to persecuted minorities from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh who entered India on or before 31 December 2014. The petitioner challenged the cut-off date, arguing that it lacks a rational basis and defeats the humanitarian purpose of the law. This Section 6B says only those who came before the end of 2014 can apply for Indian citizenship under this law. The petitioner said this rule is unfair because people like him, who came later but still face persecution, are left out.
Key Statements from the Petitioner (As Quoted in the Petition)
Read Also: Supreme Court Directs Inclusive Digital KYC Access
“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.”
The petitioner argued that as a Roman Catholic, he faced severe religious persecution in Pakistan, and there was no protection or legal remedy available from local authorities. He entered India in 2016 under a Long-Term Visa, seeking protection under the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019.
“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 petitioner invoked Article 21 of the Constitution, claiming that deportation would endanger his life and liberty, especially due to the high risk of persecution in Pakistan for being a Christian minority.
“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.”
He challenged the cut-off date of 31 December 2014 under Section 6B, calling it arbitrary and discriminatory. He said it violated the Right to Equality under Article 14, especially since the threat to Christians in Pakistan had not changed after 2014.
“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 argued that the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 aimed to protect persecuted minorities like Christians, and that drawing a line based on a date (2014) ignored the reality that persecution still exists even after that date.
“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.”
He invoked the principle of non-refoulement, which means a person should not be sent back to a country where they face serious harm. He claimed this is protected under Article 21, even for foreign nationals.
“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.”
This quote came from a supporting representation filed by his Indian citizen wife, requesting an extension of his Long-Term Visa due to the threat to his life if he returned to Pakistan.
Read Also: Functional Disability | Employees’ Compensation Act 2025
Court’s Reasoning in Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 Case
The Supreme Court of India, while hearing the plea on 12 June 2025, did not go into the merits of the petition filed by the Pakistani Christian who sought Indian citizenship under the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019. The Bench, comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan, observed that the petitioner could pursue his remedy before the appropriate High Court. As stated in the order:
“We are not inclined to entertain the petition. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the Bombay High Court for appropriate relief.”
The Court did not examine whether the cut-off date of 31 December 2014, mentioned under Section 6B of the Citizenship Act, 1955, violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that denying citizenship under the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 based on the date of entry into India is arbitrary and unfair to persecuted minorities like Pakistani Christians. However, the Bench refrained from commenting on the constitutionality of this provision.
Even though the petitioner raised serious concerns about religious persecution, non-refoulement, and his Right to Life under Article 21, the Supreme Court took a limited procedural approach. The judges did not deliver a ruling on whether deporting the petitioner would violate his fundamental rights under Indian constitutional law. Instead, they left the matter open for detailed examination by the Bombay High Court.
Thus, while the plea under the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 highlighted important constitutional and humanitarian issues, the Supreme Court opted not to make a direct ruling and instead directed the petitioner to seek appropriate legal relief at the state level.
Read Also: SC on Reasonable Accommodation in MBBS Admission
Impact of the Judgment in Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 Case
- The Supreme Court’s refusal to entertain the petition means that constitutional questions regarding the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019, especially the cut-off date of 31 December 2014, remain unanswered at the apex level.
- The decision has left Pakistani Christians and other persecuted minorities who entered India after 2014 in legal uncertainty, as their protection under the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 is still not guaranteed.
- The Court’s direction to approach the Bombay High Court opens the door for individual relief, but does not address the broader constitutional issue of equality under Article 14 and the right to life under Article 21.
- The ruling emphasizes a procedural approach, showing that the Supreme Court is cautious about directly ruling on sensitive aspects of the CAA, especially in cases involving religious persecution and non-refoulement.
- For foreign nationals facing deportation, the judgment highlights the importance of seeking relief through High Courts, particularly when invoking fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution.
- The case brings renewed attention to the limitations of the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019, especially its lack of provisions for minorities persecuted after the 2014 cut-off date.
Final Thought
The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the plea of a Pakistani Christian seeking protection under the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 highlights the legal gap faced by persecuted minorities who arrived in India after the 2014 cut-off date. While the Court allowed the petitioner to approach the Bombay High Court, the broader constitutional questions about equality, human rights, and the need for a more inclusive citizenship policy under the CAA remain unresolved. This case shows the urgent need to revisit the law to ensure that its humanitarian purpose truly protects all who face religious persecution.
Read Also: SC on Contempt for Using Fake Court Orders
