ALLIANCE SCHOOL OF LAW

MOOT MEMORIAL ASSIGNMENT-I

DHINESH V

17040142007

IN THE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF GRINGOTTS

IN THE MATTER OF:

MR. WEASLEY...…………………...……………………………………...PETITIONER

Vs

UNION OF GRINGOTTS..………………………………………………...RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pg. No

1. LIST OF ABBREVATIONS 4

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5

I. CASES 6

II. CONSTITUTIONS 6

III. STATUTES. 6

IV. DATABASES. 6

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION. 7

4. STATEMENTS OF FACTS. 9

5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES. 10

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS. 11

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 12-17

1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA INDEED GUARANTEES THE FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHT OF DIE WITH DIGNITY

2
2. PASSIVE EUTHANASIA IS PERMISSIBLE BY SC UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF

LIVING WILL AND ADVANCE MEDICAL DIRECTIVES

8. PRAYER 18

3
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

U/S Under section

AIR All India Report
Art. Article
Hon’ble Honourable
No. Number
PIL Public Interest Litigation
PAR. PARAGRAPH
LJ Law journal
Sec Section
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
UOI Union of India
VS. Verses
U. K United Kingdom
U. S United States
HDI Human Development Index
GIMS Gringotts Institute of Medical Sciences
e.g. Example
Reg. Registered
i.e In essence

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. CASES

1. Giyan Kaur v. State of Punjab 1996 AIR 946

2. Suddheswari v state of Assam1981 Cri Lj 1005

4
 3. Maruti Shripati Dubai vs State Of Maharashtra Bom CR 499,(1986) 88 BOMLR 589

4. P.Rathinam vs Union Of India 1994 AIR 1844, 1994 SCC (3) 394

5. Airedale NHS Trust V. Bland[1993] All E.R. 82

6. Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru vs. V. R. Rudani AIR 1989 SC 1607

7. State of Kerala vs. N.M. Thomas, 1976(1) SCR 906

8. Common Cause v. Union of India 2018

9. Aruna ramacahandra Shaunbaug v Union of India & Ors 2011

10. H B Karibasamma v Union Of India, Karnataka HC (2012)

11. Naresh Maratao Sakhre V Union Of India

12. C. A Thomas Master V Union Of India HC (2000)

II. CONSTITUTIONS:

1. Constitution of India, 1950

III. STATUES

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860

2. INDIAN MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT, 1956
3. Mental Capacity Act, 2005

5
IV.LEGAL DATABASES

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/235821

• www.manupatra.com

• www.indiakanoon.org

• www.judis.nic.in

• www.westlaw.com

Digests

 M.P Jain, Indian constitutional law, 5th edition 2003, Wadhwa and co.

 H.M. Seervai, Critical Commentary on the Constitution of India, (Universal Law

Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 4th edn., 2004).

 D.D Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, Wadhwa& Co., Nagpur, (4thedn.,

2008)

 M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law,Wadhwa and Co., Nagpur, (5thedn., 2003).

 V.N Shukla, Constitution of India, Eastern Book Co., Lucknow, (10thedn., 2001).

 Aravind. P. Datar, Commentary on the Constitution of India., Wadhwa& Co., Nagpur,

(Vol. 392)

 Dr.Subhash C. Kashyap, Constitutional Law of India., (Universal Law Publishing Co.

Pvt. Ltd.,

6
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Republic of Gringotts has the jurisdiction hear the instant matter

under Article 32 of the Constitution of Republic of Gringotts.

Article 32 of the constitution reads as:

“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the

enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs,

including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo

warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any

of the rights conferred by this Part

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1)

and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the

local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme

Court under clause (2).s

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise

provided for by this Constitution.”

7
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The country of Gringotts is primarily an agriculturally based economy. The Fundamental

Rights and Directive Principles of state policy enshrined under the constitution hold a

premier position in the legal system of the country. The major segment of people lives below

poverty line with the Human Development Index (HDI) being 0.547.

The govt. hospitals in Gringotts are poor in terms of life saving equipment and the private

health facilities are too costly to be afforded by common mass.

2. Mr. Weasley is a citizen of Gringotts and a resident of Azkaban (capital of Gringotts) who is

a low paid employee in a private firm and the soul breadwinner of his family. He lives with

his wife Mrs. Weasley and three children. His wife was diagnosed with a rare spinal disease

and was admitted to Gringotts Institute of Medical Sciences (GIMS), which is controlled by

central government.

3. She has been under expert medical treatment and prescribed lifesaving drugs at a cost of Rs.

95,000/- month approximately which incurred a heavy loss upon the family. To secure

money for continuation of treatment, the marginal land owned by the family has been sold

and the residential house had to be mortgaged. The children had to abandon their studies.

4. Mrs. Weasley is now on life support system and is advised by doctors to continue with the

treatment. She suffers excruciating pain and on her request the family has requested the

doctors to withdraw the life support system. The doctors have refused to do so because it

would be contrary to the professional medical ethics and would amount to a penal offence.

5. As a result, the family was, within a short span of time, reduced to an extreme state of

impoverishment and therefore, in December 2019, the aggrieved filed a writ petition in

Supreme Court of Gringotts, praying for a direction to the medical superintendent of GIMS

8
to withdraw the life support system so that Mrs. Weasley may die and get rid of her pain and

suffering, thus doing away with the penury of the family

9
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1

1. WHETHER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH GUARANTEES

THE RIGHT TO LIFE INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO DIE.

ISSUE 2

2. WHETHER PASSIVE EUTHANASIA SHOULD BE ALLOWED ONLY IN CASE OF

EMERGENCIES OR IN ALL THE CASES WITH THE PERMISSION OF SC

10
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1

1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA INDEED GUARANTEES THE FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHT OF DIE WITH DIGNITY

“Why should I fear death? If I am, then death is not. If death is, then I am not.Why should I fear

that which can only exist when I do not?”

– Epicurus

The right to live with dignity also includes the smoothening of the process of dying in

case of a terminally ill patient or a person in PVS with no hope of recovery1. A failure to legally

recognize advance medical directives may amount to non-facilitation of the right to smoothen the

dying process and the right to live with dignity.”

ISSUE 2

2. PASSIVE EUTHANSIA IS PERMISSABLE BY SC UNDER THE CONDITIONS

OF LIVING WILL AND ADVANCE MEDICAL DERECTIVES

It is an undisputed that Doctors’ primary duty is to provide treatment and save life but not in the

case when a person has already expressed his desire of not being subjected to any kind of

treatment. It is a common law right of people, of any civilized country, to refuse unwanted

medical treatment and no person can force him/her to take any medical treatment which the

person does not desire to continue

1
Article-Does right to Life include Right to Die?, by Diganth Raj Sehgal, School of Law

11
 ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA INDEED GUARANTEES THE FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHT OF DIE WITH DIGNITY

“Why should I fear death? If I am, then death is not. If death is, then I am not.Why should I fear

that which can only exist when I do not?”

– Epicurus

The right to live with dignity also includes the smoothening of the process of dying in

case of a terminally ill patient or a person in PVS with no hope of recovery. A failure to legally

recognize advance medical directives may amount to non-facilitation of the right to smoothen the

dying process and the right to live with dignity.”

The instant Writ Petition is being filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in

public interest to bring to the notice of this Hon'ble Court 2 the serious problem of violation of

fundamental right to life, liberty, privacy and the right to die with dignity of the people of this

country guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India 3. It is submitted that the

unwanted medical treatment, like feeding through hydration tubes, being kept on ventilator and

other life supporting machines in order to artificially prolong their natural life span. This

2
Common cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India on March 8th 2018
3
 Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 648 

12
sometimes leads to extension of pain and agony both physical and mental which they desperately

seek to end by making an informed choice and clearly expressing their wishes in advance, (called

a living will) in the event of they going into a state when it will not be possible for them to

express their wishes. In the present regime of laws even clearly expressed wishes of such patients

to be permitted to die with dignity are not respected and it is difficult for the medical practitioner

to take a decision in accordance with these wishes, due to the fear of facing penal consequences 4.

This situation is depriving the citizens of the country of a precious fundamental right guaranteed

to them by the Constitution, namely the right to die with dignity, which is implicit in Article 21

of the Constitution.

That the Petitioner is thus praying to this Hon'ble Court to declare 'right to die with dignity' (not

'right to die' per se) as a fundamental right of the people of this country enshrined in Article 21 of

the Constitution. Tire Petitioner is further seeking direction from this Hon'ble Court, directing

the Respondents, to adopt suitable procedures, in consultation with State Governments where

necessary, to ensure that persons of deteriorated health or terminally ill should be able to execute

a document titled "MY LIVING WILL & ATTORNEY AUTHORISATION" which can be

presented to hospital for appropriate action in event of the executant being admitted to the

hospital with serious illness which may threaten termination of life of fundamental rights of such

persons as guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are not infringed or

violated in any manner.

4
Ramchandra Shanbaug vs Union Of India & Ors  (2011)

13
RIGHT TO LIFE - RIGHT TO LIVE WITH DIGNITY - RIGHT TO DIE WITH

DIGNITY

The Right to Life is one of the basic fundamental rights which have been provided to the

people of this country in the Constitution5. This Hon'ble Court over the years in various cases has

enlarged the scope of this right in many facets of life some of which includes shelter, food,

health, privacy etc. It is submitted in whatever way this Hon'ble Court has enlarged the scope of

the right to life the basis of it has always been the right to live with human dignity 6. In the case of

Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi 7 reported in (1981)t SCC 608

this Hon'ble Court has held in very clear terms that right to life does not mean a mere animal

existence of a human being. This Hon'ble Court has held that right to life will mean right to live

with dignity with basic amenities of life like food, shelter, health etc.

In view of these judgments and particularly in the light of the observations made by this Hon'ble

Court in the case of Francis Coralie supra, one fundamental issue which arises is that whether the

right to live with dignity, in the context of the issue raised in his petition well include in its fold

the 'right to die with dignity' or not8. Since where the ebbing out process of the life has already

started or where the person has gone into a persistent vegetative state there is no 8 such a person

can in no way be termed as living a life with dignity and hence the natural corollary emerges that

5
Giyan Kaur v. State of Punjab 1996 AIR 946

6
Aruna Ramchandra ShanbaugVs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors
7
Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi(1981)t SCC 608
8
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993) 1 AII ER 821

14
in such a situation the person should have a right to die with dignity. The answer to this question

has been subtly answered by the Constitution Bench of this Hon'ble Court in its observations in

the case of Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab and in other connected matters, (i996) 2 SCC 648

while adjudicating on the vires of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code and also on the issue of

declaring Right to Die as a part of the Right to Life. Justice J.S. Verma, as he then was, while

speaking for this, Hon'ble Court has observed in Para 24 and 25 that '...The right to life including

the right to live with human dignity would mean the existence of such a right up to the end of

natural life. This also includes the right to a dignified life up to the point of death including a

dignified procedure of death. In other words, this may include the right of a dying man to also

die with dignity when his life is ebbing out. But the right to die with dignity at the end of life is

not to be confused or equated with the right to die an unnatural death curtailing the natural span

of life. A question may arise, in the context of a dying man who is terminally ill or in a persistent

vegetative state that he may be permitted to terminate it by a premature extinction of his life in

those circumstances. This category of cases may fall within the ambit of the right to die with

dignity as a part of right to live with dignity, when death due to termination of natural life is

certain and imminent and the process of natural death has commenced. The debate even in such

cases to permit physician assisted termination of life is inconclusive9.

The interpretation of the above observation in the judgment will show that though there can be

no right to die per se and it cannot be a part of right to life however, the 'right to die with dignity'

can be a part of right to live with dignity. The Petitioner, most respectfully submitted, is

emphasizing on this 'right to die with dignity' as a part of right to live with dignity which is a part

of Right to Life as guaranteed to the people of this country under Article 21 of the Constitution.

9
Common cause v Union of India 2018

15
The life, which is being sustained by the help of artificial life supports just to keep the person

alive physiologically in a complete vegetative state cannot be termed as healthy and a dignified

life in fact it is worse than the animal existence.

ISSUE 2

2. PASSIVE EUTHANASIA IS PERMISSIBLE BY SC UNDER THE CONDITIONS

OF LIVING WILL AND ADVANCE MEDICAL DIRECTIVES

It is an undisputed fact that Doctors’ primary duty is to provide treatment and save life but not in

the case when a person has already expressed his desire of not being subjected to any kind of

treatment. It is a common law right of people, of any civilized country, to refuse unwanted

medical treatment and no person can force him/her to take any medical treatment which the

person does not desire to continue.

The core issue which revolves around this whole subject of advance directives and provision of

executing Living Wills is if the person is in a medical State where there are no chances of no

choice but to submit himself to the doctors who might put him on the life supports just to prolong

his life. It is submitted that to submit to death while using life-sustaining treatment and

prolonging tire mental and physical pain and agony of the patient and/or his/her relatives and to

be able to make a choice in this regard are two different things. The matter of choice is an

important personal decision of the patient to use or not to use the life-sustaining treatment. The

petitioner is not advocating that each and every person should be compulsorily required to

16
execute the Living Will or issue advance directives. The endeavor of the petitioner is only to

seek a choice' for the people which is not available at present and they are left to the mercy of

doctors who to save themselves from any penal consequences half heartedly, despite knowing

that the death is inevitable continue administering the treatment which the person might not have

wanted to continue with. It is most respectfully submitted that the freeness/freedom to execute or

not to execute the Living Will or issue advance directives is paramount. The persons will also be

free to issue advance directives both in a positive and negative manner, meaning thereby that it is

not that a person is necessarily required to issue directive that the life sustaining treatment should

not be given to him in the event of he/she going into persistent vegetative state or in an

irreversible state. The person can also issue directives as to all the possible treatment which

should be given to him when he is not able express his/her wishes

17
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and

authorities cited this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

A. Allow the Writ petitioner filed by Mr.Weasley seeking to withdraw the life support
system of his wife Mrs.Weasley and free her from pain and sufferings.

B. Allow the Writ petitioner filed by Mr.Weasley to seek for compensation. Despite
spending a huge amount on special care for his partner and still there wasn’t any
improvement in patient condition. As a result, the family reduced to an extreme state of
impoverishment.

And pass any other order in favour of the petitioner that it may deem fit in the ends of justice,

equity, and good conscience. All of which is respectfully submitted.

S/d______________

(Counsel for the

Petitioner)

DHINESH V

18