PETITIONER SIDE

1st speaker

May it please this Hon’ble Court, this is counsel __ appearing along with my co-counsels ___, __
and ____ on behalf of the appellants in the case concerning Dr Siddhartha v. Uttaranchal State
Medical And health centre and others. The counsel for the petitioners have three contentions to
submit before this Hon’ble Court. Hope the lordship is well versed with the facts of the case.
With your lordships’ kind permission may the counsel move on to her contentions.
It is contended that the special leave petition is maintainable. It is contended that the jurisdiction
of Supreme Court (hereinafter as SC) under Article 136 can always be invoked when a question
of law of general public importance arises and even question of fact can also be a subject matter
of judicial review under Art.136. also,

1) A duty is enjoined upon the SC to exercise its power by setting right the illegality in the
judgments is well-settled that illegality must not be allowed to be perpetrated and failure by the
SC to interfere with the same would amount to allowing the illegality to be perpetuated. In this
case the judgment of High court has various illegalities.

2) It is submitted that, the present case involves a matter of general public importance as it
directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties as the order is erroneous and prejudicial
to the interest of the party.

3) The SC is not precluded from going into the question of facts under Art. 136, if it considers it
necessary to do so. Art. 136 uses the words ‘in any cause or matter’. This gives widest power to
this court to deal with any cause or matter. In the instant case, the HC, in haste, reached the
conclusion.
Thus, on the above grounds, it is humbly submitted that the petition is maintainable before the
Hon’ble SC of Indiva.

Thus the SC is requested to entertain this special leave petition.

With these humble submissions, the counsel would like to call Mr__ , to deal with the other
contentions.
Much obliged your lordship

2nd speaker The counsel would like to contend that DR. SIDDHARTHA RIGHT TO PRIVACY
HAS BEEN INFRINGED. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that right to Privacy
is the basic inalienable right of an individual concomitant of his right to exercise control over his
personality and is essential for his development as a human being. The liberty of an individual is
a matter of fundamental natural law, a private preserve and must be safeguarded from
unnecessary interference.

Right to privacy has been held to be constitutionally protected fundamental right. Right to
privacy is vested within right to life and personal liberty under Art. 21 of Constitution of Indiva.
A citizen under this right has the right to protect and safeguard the liberty of his own, his family,
marriage, procreation, motherhood, childbearing and education among other matters.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, Privacy has been defined as, “right to be left alone”; right
of a person to be free from any unwarranted publicity; right to live freely from any unwarranted
interference by the public in matter with which public is not necessarily concerned”. It is on the
desire of people to choose freely under what circumstances and to what extent they will expose
themselves, their attitude and their behaviour to others.
The scope of Art. 21 is very broad and it covers every aspect of life which is required for an
individual to live a healthy and secured life. Art. 21 takes all those aspects of life which go to
make a person's life meaningful and even State can’t violate it. Art. 21 protects the dignity of
human life, one's personal autonomy, one’s right to privacy, etc.

In a classic judgment rendered by Jeevan Reddy, J., in R. Rajagopal @ RR Gopal & Anr. v. State
of Tamil Nadu & Ors., [1994] 6 SCC 632, stated the right of privacy is implicit in the right to life
and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21. It is a "right to be let alone:"
A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation,
motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters. None can publish anything
concerning the above matters without his consent - whether truthful of otherwise and whether
laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right to privacy of the person
concerned and would be liable in an action for damages. Reference may, at this stage, be made
to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Right which defines this right us follows,:

"(1) Every one has the. right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his
correspondence. (2) There shall be no interference by a public authority With the exercise of this
right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in democratic society in the
interests of national security, public safety or the economic well being of the country, for the
prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the
rights and freedoms of others.

Thus, the right to privacy has been infringed of Dr Siddhartha as Dr Shekhar ought not
have shared the public information.

With these humble submissions, the counsel would like to call Mr__ , to deal with the other
contentions.

Much obliged your lordship

3rd Speaker

The counsel is here to contend that dr. shekhar along with the hospital authorities is liable to
pay compensation to dr. siddhartha. The defendant is liable for compensation to the Petitioner.
Firstly, there has been violation of fundamental right under Art. Art. 21. When a person's
fundamental right is infringed, he has a public law remedy of seeking compensation from the
state and this public law remedy is in addition to private law remedy by way of a civil suit for
damages. Secondly, the hospital is also liable under the principle of vicarious liability.

DOCTOR’S DUTY TO MAINTAIN CONFIDENTIALITY

Appellant has vehemently contended that the principle of" "duty of care" as applicable to persons
in medical profession. includes the duty to maintain confidentiality and since this duty was
violated by the respondents, they are liable in damages to the appellant. Duty to maintain
confidentiality has its origin in the Hippocratic Oath, which is an ethical code adopted as a guide
to conduct by the medical profession throughout the ages and still used in the graduation
ceremonies of many medical schools and colleges: The Hippocractic Oath consists of two parts.
The first, or covenant; is the solemn agreement concerning the relationship of apprentice to"
teacher and the obligations enjoined on the pupil. The second part constitutes the ethical code.

It is on the basis of the above that International Code of Medical Ethics has laid down as
under :

"A physician shall preserve absolute confidentiality on all he knows about his patient even
after his patient has died."

Code of Medical Ethics has been made by the Indian Medical Council which, inter alia, provides
as under : "Do not disclose the secrets of a patient that have been learnt in the exercise of your
profession. Those may be disclosed only in a Court of Law under orders of the presiding judge,"
It is true that in the doctor-patient relationship, the most important aspect is the doctor's duty of
maintaining secrecy. A doctor cannot disclose to a person any information regarding his patient
which he has gathered in the course of treatment nor can the doctor disclose to anyone else the
mode of treatment or the advice given by him to the patient.

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most humbly
submitted that the court may be pleased to adjudge and declare ADJUDGE THE SPECIAL
LEAVE PETITION TO BE MAINTAINABLE, THAT DR. SIDDHARTHA’s RIGHT TO
PRIVACY HAS BEEN INFRINGED and THAT DR. SHEKHAR ALONG WITH THE
HOSPITAL AUTHORITIES IS LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION TO DR.
SIDDHARTHA.
Also, the Court may pass any order, writ, direction that it deem fit in the interest of justice,
equity and good faith. Thank you, your lordship.
RESPONDENT SIDE

1st speaker- May it please this Hon’ble Court, this is counsel __ appearing along with my co-
counsels ___, __ and ____ on behalf of the respondents in the case concerning Dr Siddhartha v.
Uttaranchal State medical and health centre.
The counsel has three contentions to submit before this Hon’ble Court. Hope the lordship is well
versed with the facts of the case. With your lordships’ kind permission may the counsel move on
to her contentions.
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble SC of Indiva that the Special Leave Petition filed by
the petitioner is not maintainable as Special Leave cannot be granted when substantial justice has
been done by the HC and no exceptional or special circumstances exist for the case to be
maintainable. Also, the present case involves no substantial question of law and inference is
based on pure question of fact which is entitled to be dismissed. It is humbly contended by the
respondent that the petitioner must show that exceptional circumstances exist and that if there is
no interference, it will result in substantial and grave injustice and the case has features of
sufficient gravity to warrant review of the decision appealed against, on merits. Only then the
Court would exercise its overriding powers under Art. 136. Special leave will not be granted
when there is no failure of justice or when substantial justice is done, though the decision might
suffer from some legal errors. In the case at hand, no exceptional and special circumstances have
been shown by the petitioner. The HC in the present case, has very judiciously decided and
rejected the petition. Further, it is not possible to define the limitations on the exercise of the
discretionary jurisdiction vested with the SC under Art. 136. But, being an exceptional and
overriding power, naturally it has to be exercised sparingly with caution only in special and
extraordinary situations. The provision does not give right to the party to appeal to the SC rather
it confers a wide discretionary power on the SC to interfere in suitable cases.
It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor an inherent right attached
to the litigation. Being a substantive statutory right, it has to be regulated in accordance with law
in force at the relevant time. It cannot be decided merely on equitable grounds.
The petitioner also had an option to resort to the jurisdiction of HC by appeal to the Court’s
higher bench or application for revision. The respondents humbly submit that keeping in view
the precedents laid down by the Apex Court, the petitioner’s sheer failure to exhaust the
available alternative remedies renders the current SLP non-maintainable.
With these humble submissions, the counsel would like to call Mr__ , to deal with the other
contentions.

Much obliged your lordship

2nd SPEAKER

The counsel is here to contend that Dr Siddhartha’s right to privacy has not been infringed. Right
to privacy has been culled out of the provisions of Article 21 arid other provisions of the
Constitution relating to Fundamental Rights read with Directive Principles of State Policy. It was
in this context that it was held by this Court in Kharuk Singh v.. Stale of Uttar Pradesh, AIR (
1963) SC 1295 that police surveillance of a person by domicilliary visits would be violative
of. Article 21 of the Constitution, It is thus contended that as one of the basic Human Rights, the
right of privacy is not treated as absolute and is subject to such action as may be lawfully taken
for the prevention of Crime or disorder or protection of health or morals or protection of rights
and freedoms of others. Right of Privacy may, apart from contract, also arise out of a particular
specific relationship which may be commercial, matrimonial, or even political. As already
discussed above, Doctor-patient relationship, though basically commercial, is, professionally, a
matter of confidence: and, there-fore, Doctors are morally and ethically bound to maintain
confidentiality. In such a situation, public disclosure of even true private facts may amount to an
invasion of the Right of Privacy which may sometimes lead to the clash of one person's "right to
be let alone" with another person's right to be informed. Disclosure of even true private facts has
the tenancy to disturb a person's tranquility. It may generate many complexes in him and may
even lead to psychological problems. He may, thereafter, have a disturbed life all through. In the
face of these potentialities and as already held by this Court in its various decisions referred to
above, the Right of Privacy is an essential component of right to life envisaged by Article .21,
The 'right, however, is not absolute and may be lawfully restricted for the prevention of crime,
disorder or protection of health or morals or protection of rights and freedom of others.

Having regard to the fact that the appellant was found to be HIV(+); its disclosure would not be
violative of either the rule of confidentiality or the appellant's Right of Privacy as the prospectus
bride with whom the appellant was likely to be married was saved in time by such disclosure, or
else, she too would have been infected with the dreadful disease if marriage had taken place and
consummated.

Thus the doctor has not infringed right to privacy rather, he did it to save further lives of
others.

With these humble submissions, the counsel would like to call Mr__ , to deal with the other
contentions.

Much obliged your lordship

3RD SPEAKER

The counsel is here to contend that Dr Shekhar along with the hospital authorities are not liable
to pay compensation.It is true that in the doctor-patient relationship, the most important aspect
is the doctor's duty of maintaining secrecy. A doctor cannot disclose to a person any
information regarding his patient which he has gathered in the course of treatment nor can the
doctor disclose to anyone else the mode of treatment or the advice given by him to the patient.
It is contended that the doctor's duty to maintain secrecy has a corelative right vested in the
patient that whatever has come to the knowledge of the Doctor would not be divulged and it is
this right which is being enforced through these proceedings. It is the basic principle of
Jurisprudence that every Right has a co- relative Duty and every Duty has a co-relative Right.
But the rule is not absolute. It is subject to certain exceptions in the sense that a person may
have a Right but there may not be co- relative Duty. The instant case, as we shall presently see,
falls within the exceptions.
Hippocratic Oath as such is not enforceable in a court of law as it has no statutory force.
Medical information about a person is protected by the Code of Professional Conduct made by
the Medical Council of India under Section 33(m) read with Section 20A of the Act.
The Code of Medical Ethics also carves out an exception to the rule of confidentiality and
permits the disclosure. in the circumstances enumerated under which public interest, would
override. the duty of confidentiality, particularly where there, is an immediate or future health
risk to others, The argument .of the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, that the
respondents were under a duty to, maintain confidentiality on account, of the Code of Medical
Ethics. formulated by the Indian Medical Council cannot be accepted as the proposed rnarriage
carried with it the health risk to an identifiable person who had to be protected from being
infected with the communicable disease from which the appellant suffered, The right to
confidentiality, if any. vested in the appellant was not enforceable in the present situation.

Also, Mental and physical health is-of prime importance in a marriage, as one of the objects of
the marriage is the procreation of equally healthy children. That is why, in every system of
matrimonial law, it has been provided that if a person was found to be suffering from any,
including venereal disease, in a communicable form, it will be open to the other partner in the
marriage to seek divorce. Reference, for instance, may be made to Section 13(i)(v) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 which provides as under :

"13(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may,
on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on
the ground that the other party

(v) HAS BEEN SUFFERING FROM VENEREAL DISEASE IN A COMMUNICABLE

FORM.

Thus it is contended that the respondent along with the hospital authorities have not deviated
from their ethics rather they have done what would result in bigger good,

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most humbly
submitted that the court may be pleased to adjudge and declare ADJUDGE THE SPECIAL
LEAVE PETITION TO BE NON MAINTAINABLE, THAT DR. SIDDHARTHA’s RIGHT
TO PRIVACY HAS NOT BEEN INFRINGED and THAT DR. SHEKHAR ALONG WITH
THE HOSPITAL AUTHORITIES IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION TO DR.
SIDDHARTHA.
Also, the Court may pass any order, writ, direction that it deem fit in the interest of justice,
equity and good faith. Thank you, your lordship.