The LAW Learners

‘What if you were

the supreme
court for a day?’
JULY 13, 2019

TLL’s What if you were the

Supreme Court for a Day
2019
Prelims Round 2 thela
 PRELIMS – ROUND 2
CASE

PRELIMS ROUND 2– 13 JuLy ‘2019 th

FACTS OF THE CASE

The government of Indiva declared the first comprehensive population policy on 16th April,
1976. The main aim of the policy was to bring down the birth rate from 35%per thousand to
25%per thousand. In this policy the state government were allowed to enact legislative measures
regarding compulsory sterilisation. Indivans were against compulsory sterilisation, but this policy
created awareness about small family norm.
Most people of Indiva, and to be more specific, Indiva urban middle class in particular believes
that population explosion in Indiva is due to poor and backward social groups, including some
religious groups that do not understand and practice family planning.
Between 1970 and 2000 the fertility declined from around six to less than three. In the year 2000
the Government of Morana (A state in Indiva) launched a National Population Policy, with the
purpose of reducing the birth rate to control the population explosion. For the first time since
independence, National Population Policy 2000, comprehensively addressed the problem of
population growth in integration with issues such as child survival, maternal health, women
empowerment and contraception. The immediate objective of the policy is to offer service
delivery in integrated approach to improve reproductive health and child care. The long term
objective of the policy is to achieve population stabilization by the year 2045.
Under the Policy one of the measures taken by the Government was sterilization procedures
wherein women and men are sterilized in camps or in accredited centres. Free contraceptives
were also being provided. In addition, monetary incentives were given to couples undertaking

TLL’s What if you were the

Supreme Court for a Day
2019
Prelims Round 2 thela
permanent family planning methods like vasectomy and tubectomy. In the meanwhile a public
Interest Litigation has been filled by Ms.Padmini Sadhu an activist with the concern as the matter
raises the question of Public importance. What seems to have provoked Ms Padmini Sadhu in
filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution in this Court is that women underwent
a sterilization procedure in any camps are not given pre-operative tests on the women or
proposed patients; they were not given any counselling of any kind at all; they had no idea about
the potential dangers and outcomes of the sterilization procedure and a series of complaints were
filed and they were registered for the failure of sterilization. Ms. Sadhu was compelled to file a
Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court to ensure that sterilization procedures
nationwide are conducted in accordance with accepted legal norms, medical procedures and the
provisions of the manuals and that those women and men who suffer due to the failure or
complications in implementing the norms, procedures and provisions are given adequate
compensation. The PIL is pending for final hearing.

ARGUMENTS BY THE PARTIES

Arguments of the Petitioners

I. Whether or not the policy enacted by the government of indiva, is valid?

Firstly, it is contended by the Petitioner that the Policy in question is violative of the
Fundamental Right to Life and Personal Liberty granted to the people of Indiva as it restricts the
liberty and privacy of its people who may choose to opt for other methods of family planning.
Apart from this, they have the liberty and freedom to choose the number of children they want
to have and the State if puts restriction on this, clearly violates their right to life and personal
liberty. The present policy, apart from developing health hazards, complications and deaths, also
inflicts physical and mental agony and pain to the families and the women. Secondly, the harmful
effects of the policy are so grave and large that the positive sides are outweighed by the same.

Indiva being a very diverse nation, has all kinds of population who are not equally sensitive or
conscious about every means and methods. The unawareness among the subjects, certainly
creates room for malpractices among the medical practitioners who for their own sake, greed
and convenience, perform the same in a reckless and insensitive manner, leading to utter failure
of the practice in major parts of the country.

TLL’s What if you were the

Supreme Court for a Day
2019
Prelims Round 2 thela
II. Whether or not the enactment of this policy is violative of the fundamental right to life
(article 21) of the indiavan constitution?

It is contended by the Petitioner that the facts findings have indicated that Permanent
Sterilization in females can cause serious health complications to them whereas sterilization in
males stand to be almost complication free. The Petitioner hence emphasizes on an alternative to
the provisions of the policy which creates awareness about the benefits of male sterilizations and
advocated the use of other family planning measures. The success rate of sterilization in southern
parts of the country is not because of the National Population Policy but rather because of the
use of private health care services and increased levels of education and awareness. Hence the
petitioner advocates on the emphasis to male sterilization, which in the present scenario is
treated as a matter of shame for the men. Awareness about the benefits of male sterilization and
other alternative forms of family planning must be made as an alternative to the provisions of
the present national Population Policy.

Arguments of the Respondents

I. Whether the petitioner’s claim as to the validity of the policy maintainable?

It is humbly submitted that the petitioner’s claim challenging the very validity of the policy is not
maintainable before this Hon’ble Court because firstly, there exists a strong need in the country
for population stabilization by way of family planning and birth control. The present policy
effectively fulfils this need. Secondly, there is fulfilment of duties on part of the Union of Indiva
as it is striving to make sure that no fundamental or legal rights of any citizen are violated.
Furthermore, the lapses in the implementation of the policy are curable and therefore form no
reason for rendering the entire policy invalid. Thirdly, the fundamental rights and directive
principles should be harmoniously interpreted.

II. Whether the complaints registered for failure of sterilization indicate towards lapses
in the policy?

One of the major concerns of the petitioner is regarding the failure of sterilization especially in
females. The liability for the same is being attributed upon the respondent. It is humbly
submitted that ‘failure of sterilization’ is a quite broad term and is caused due to a number of

TLL’s What if you were the

Supreme Court for a Day
2019
Prelims Round 2 thela
reasons. Most of these are due to natural factors not due to medical negligence of any kind. With
regards to the award of compensation the respondent is ready to give compensation after
evaluation on a case-to-case basis by a committee established by the government for the said
purpose.

guidelines
 As the Final Adjudicator to the dispute you are to decide the case, based
on the given facts and laws.
 The MAXIMUM WORD LIMIT OF THE JUDGEMENT IS 600
WORDS [=- 100].
 The Judgement need not mention or reiterate the facts again. However,
wherever relevant you can mention them.
 The Issue has to be decided by the application of law to the factual
situation.
 As the Judge, you shall be neutral and must only appreciate the given
Facts, Arguments and the Law. Avoid going beyond the same.

TLL’s What if you were the

Supreme Court for a Day
2019
Prelims Round 2 thela
  As a matter of fact, although a judgement follows a set structure.
However, in the Event, there is no set structure and no marks shall be
allocated to that. The Review Team is concerned with the Substance.
 As already conveyed, Co-Authorship is allowed, however both the
authors should have registered for the Event. While Submitting, please
mention both authors Name and Email id, in the Form.
 The Deadline of Submission is 13th July ’19, 01:00 A.M. A maximum
grace of 15 Minutes shall be provided and NO SUBMISSIONS
SHALL BE ACCEPTED AFTER 01:15 A.M. No requests for Late
Submissions shall be entertained.
 The Submission may be in Word or Pdf.
 The LAW Learners team is highly strict on deadlines. No Submissions
shall be accepted beyond the Deadline.
 Plagiarism shall result into summary rejection.

SUBMISSION
LINK OF SUBMISSION FOR ROUND 1 :-
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScN1vao_xGB9D2h56vKMArJ
otPSfUoh0NUzRCVpNqC0UV2xAQ/viewform?usp=sf_link

TLL’s What if you were the

Supreme Court for a Day
2019
Prelims Round 2 thela
CONTACT US – You may reach out to us at 7906381754 /
7007404078 or mail us at contact@thelawlearners.com

Best wishes.

TLL’s What if you were the

Supreme Court for a Day
2019
Prelims Round 2 thela