RESpon PIGEON

AGLC NHRC MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2021
TEAM:PIGEON
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF DRUPADAM
WRIT PETITION
FILED UNDER ARTICLE-32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF DRUPADAM
W.P.NO…………………………. / 2021
IN THE MATTERS BETWEEN
PRO-LIFE …………………………………………………….……….PETITIONER 1
NHRC…………………………………………………………………..PETITIONER 2
COUPLE X & Z ……………………………………………………….PETITIONER 3
MR.FREDDY …….……………………………………………………PETITIONER 4
VS
UNION OF DRUPADAM ……….………………………………….RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 1

S. No Table of Content
Pg. No
1. TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
2. INDEX OF ABBREVIATION 3-5
3. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 6-9
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 10-11
5. QUESTION OF LAW 12
6. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
13

7. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 14
8. 15-27
ADVANCED ARGUMENTS
9. PRAYER
28

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS
1. &. And
2. AIR All india report
3. Anor. Another
4. Art. Article
5. Arts Articles
6. Assn Association
7. Cl. Clause
8. Co Company
9. ART Assisted Reproductive Technology
10. U.S United States

11. CPC Code of civil Procedure
12. OHCHR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights
13. In Re In Reference
14. HC High court
15. http Hypertext transfer Protocol
16. I.e In the essence of
17. ILR Indian Law Reports
18. Ins. Inserted
19. Cal. California
20. Ors. Others

21. p. Paragraph
22. SC Supreme court
23. SCC Supreme court cases
24. Sec. Section
25. Subs Substituted
26. Vs. Versus
27. WP Writ petition

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS REFERRED
1. Arvind Datar commentary on the constitution of India Vol.2,2nd edition,2010, Lexis

Nexis
2. D.D Basu, commentary on the Constitution of India Vol.1,2&3,8th edition 2008 Lexis
Nexis
3. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitution law, vol.1&2,6th edition 2013, Lexis Nexis
4. V.N. Shukla, constitution of India 13th edition,2013, Eastern Book company
5. O.P Rai, The Constitution of India 30 (2d ed. Orient Publishing Company 2014).
WEBSITES REFERRED
1. www.lawctopus.com
2. www.indiankannon.com
3. www.legalcrystal.com
4. www.legalservice.com
5. www.lawyersservice.com
6. www.lawtimesjournal.com
7. www.advocadekhoj.com
8. www.vakilsearch.com
9. www.medicaldail.com
10. www.casemine.com

11. www.scconline.com
12. www.outsideonline.com
13. www.acedemia.com
14. www.indianlawyers.wordpress.com
STATUTES REFERRED
1. The Constitution of India,1950

2. Civil procedure code,1908
3. Surrogacy act,2019

CASELAWS REFERRED
1.Hussain Reddy vs Executive Engineer 11 Oct 2002
2.Tilokchand v. Munshi, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 898;

3.Kamini Kumar Das Choudhary v. State of W.B., A.I.R. 1972 S.C.
2060.
4.Kanubhai Brahmbhatt v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1159
5.Chiranjeet Lal Chaudhary v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 41.
6. Ramaiah v. Shivlingaiah,WP No.32026 of 2016
7. Razia begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum,AIR 1958 SC 886
8.Baby Manji Yamada v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2009 S.C. 84.
9. Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 746
10.Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 180

11.State of H.P. v. Umed Ram, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 847
12. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghvendranath Nandkarni,

A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 109
13. Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of W.B., A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 404
14.State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, A.I.R. 1952 S.C.R. 284.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Union of Drupadam, a South Asian country is a union of 27 states. Drupadam is a country of
different religions and cultures. The Constitution of Drupadam guarantees the right to every
individual to practice, profess and propagate religion. Drupadam is a blend of both traditional
and modern views.
The Union of Drupadam is surrounded by six countries viz. Except Sindhisthan all the other a
five neighbouring countries are having good friendly relations with Drupadam. The five
countries are Kekayam; Sindhisthan; Panchalam; Vankadesh; Cylon and Malayarajyam. From
the past three decades Drupadam focused on extensive medical research in the field of artificial
human reproductive technologies.
The objectives of the research were to help the childless couples to have their own genetically
related child and also to raise the economy of the country through medical tourism.
The Law Commission of Drupadam in its 326th Report showed concern about the growing
litigation in ART, particularly in surrogacy practices. ART industry, particularly surrogacy
practices is now a 55,000 crore rupee business. It seems that wombs in Drupadam are on rent
whichtranslatesintobabiesforforeignersanddollarsforDrupadiansurrogatemothers and hence the
surrogacy industry is like a pot of gold. Drupadam, has acquired a distinct reputation as a place
for outsourcing commercial surrogacy.
Section3:Notwithstandinganythingcontainedinanyotherlawforthetimebeingin force, subject to
the provisions of this Act, ‘every married hetero-sexual couple is entitled to have a child with the
help of surrogacy (both altruistic andcommercial)’
Explanation: Married hetero-sexual couple means and includes only nationals of Drupadam or
at least one spouse must be a national of Drupadam. Provided hetero sexual couples belongs to
Kekayam; Panchalam; Vankadesh; Cylon and Malayarajyamare also eligible to claim the right to
access surrogacy in Drupadam.

The passage of the Surrogacy Act and legalization of surrogacy particularly, the commercial
surrogacy were criticized by several religious groups in Drupadam. Most of those religious
groups staged several protests against the legalization of surrogacy.
It contended that the Surrogacy Act is unconstitutional and a violation of international

obligations of Drupadam.
Surrogacy Act. Carolin. Carolin received serious injury and one of her leg had to be amputated.
Angelina,the spouse of Mr.Jacques,approached National Human Rights Commission claiming
compensation for the death of her husband. 20,00,000/- as compensation to Mrs. Angelina.
With a petition demanding compensation for the injury suffered by Mr.Freddy, OHCHR , the
human rights institution of the United Nations , closely monitoring the developments in
Drupadam regarding the enactment of the Surrogacy Law and the subsequent
developments.OHCHR expressed their concerns about the policeactions and filed a petition to
join as a party in the petition filed by Mr. Freddy

QUESTION OF LAW
1.WHETHER THE PETITION FILED BY NHRC FOR ENSURING COMPENSATION

TO MRS.ANGELINA IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT ?
2.WHETHER THE INTERVENTION PETITION FILED BY OF OHCHR IN THE

PETITION FILED BY MR.FREDDY IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT ?
3.WHETHER SECTION 3 OF THE SURROGACY ACT,2019 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

AND A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS OF DRUPADAM OR NOT?
4.WHETHER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 3 OF THE ACT ,WHICH EXCLUDES

COUPLE FROM SINDHISTHAN IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID OR NOT?

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE RESPONDENT HEREBY SUBMITS THIS MEMORANDUM FOR THE

PETITIONS FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF DRUPADAM
WHICH HAVE BEEN CLUBBED FOR THE HEARING OF THIS HON’BLE COURT
OF DRUPADAM. THE PETITIONS FILED ARE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER
ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF DRUPADAM, 1950.
THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND

ARGUMENTS.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Supreme Court of Drupadam that, the petition filed
by NHRC for ensuring compensation to Mrs.Angelina is not maintainable.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Supreme Court of Drupadam that,the Intervention
petition filed by OHCHR in the petition filed by Mr.Freddy is not maintainable.

It is humbly submitted that, the Section 3 of the Surrogacy Act,2019 is not Unconstitutional and
and not violating International obligations of Drupadam.

It is humbly submitted that,the provisio to section 3 of the act,which excludes couple from
sindhisthan is constitutionally not valid.

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Drupadam that, the petition filed
by NHRC for ensuring compensation to Mrs.Angelina is not maintainable.
According to the constitution of drupadam, Article 32 states that the jurisdiction vested in the
supreme court is exercisable only for the enforcement of the fundamental rights conferred by
Part III of the Constitution.1
THE SUPREME COURT’S POWER TO ISSUE WRIT IS DISCRETIONERY AND

THIS CASE DOES NOT WARRANT THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETIONERY POWER.
Despite the notion that SC has the authority to review the case, however it is humbly pleaded
that it should not grant the writ of mandamus under article 32 of the drupadam Constitution.
“Such bold pronouncements have however, been eaten into by the later decisions of the court
that even when where fundamental rights are affected2 , granting of the writ under Art. 226 or
32 would be discretionary and may, therefore, be refused if any of the circumstances which
disentitle a person to discretionary judicial remedy exists in the case before the court, such as
delay, and the like3 .”
1
Hussain Reddy vs Executive Engineer 11 Oct 2002
2 D.D. Basu, Commentary on The Constitution of India 3926 (8th ed. Wadhwa and Company Law Publisher
2007).
3 Tilokchand v. Munshi, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 898; Kamini Kumar Das Choudhary v. State of W.B., A.I.R. 1972 S.C.
2060.

THERE IS AN EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE AVAILABLE.
It is submitted that there is indeed an alternative remedy available to the petitioners. High
Courts can contest the constitutionality of any law. It is prescribed that one should always go
to a lower court if possible. Thus, the petitioners could have gone to the High Court to get
their matter redressed. In 1987 a two judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled in the case of
Kanubhai Brahmbhatt v. State of Gujarat4 that a petitioner who approached theSupreme Court as
there was an infraction of his fundamental right contended that he should have first approached
the High Court in the first instance. The reason given by them and the view held by them was
that there was already a huge backlog of cases pending before the Supreme Court.
NO LOCUS STANDI FOR THEPETITIONER TO APPROACH THE COURT
There is no Locus Standi for the petitioner to approach the SC as there has been no
infringement of their fundamental right because in the cases of Chiranjeet Lal
Chaudhary5Supreme Court observed that anybody who complaints of infraction of any
fundamental rights guaranteed under the drupadam constitution is at liberty to move the Supreme
Court for the enforcement of writ.
Since in the case at hand, there is no infringement of fundamental right of the petitioner and
in the above case it was held that writ in Supreme Court can be enforced if any fundamental
right is infringed therefore petitioner has no right to approach the SC.
4 Kanubhai Brahmbhatt v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1159
5 Chiranjeet Lal Chaudhary v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 41.

THE LAW PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT IS A LAW UNDER ARTICLE 13.
In June 2019, Drupadam passed a new law: ‘Surrogacy (regulation and control) Act’6 . The law
comes within the purview of law. Article 13(3)(a) of the constitution therefore makes it clear that
not only law made by the legislature but also “law” includes any ordinance, order, bye- law, rule,
regulation, ……the force of law. Thus such an act is considered to be law made by the
legislature. Thus it is humbly submitted that the act passed by the government is a law under Art.
13.
Hence from the above arguments it is clear that the petition filed by NHRC for ensuring
compensation to Mrs.Angelina is not maintainable.
6 Moot Proposition, ¶


It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Supreme Court of Drupadam that,the Intervention
petition filed by OHCHR in the petition filed by Mr.Freddy is not maintainable.
The legal definition of Intervention petition is that “the act or procedure by which a third party
becomes a party to a pending proceeding between other parties in order to protect his or her
own intrest in the subject matter of the suit.7
Under Order 1 Rule 8A of the Code of Civil Procedure8, court can permit a person or group of
persons to intervene in a suit if court is satisfied with the reason to intervene. Such a person can
intervene even though he is not a party to the case. Court can allow such person or group of
persons to address the court and give their opinion for the case.
Court allow only in following situations:
1. When person or group of persons have direct interest in question of law in that
particular suit.
2. For cases where it is necessary for public interest.
7 https:// www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/intervention
8 Order 1 Rule 8A of the coode of civil procedure power of court to permit a person or body of persons to present
opinion or to take part in proceedings.

In case of Ramaiah v. Shivlingaiah9, court held that for intervention in a suit, public interest has
merit over direct interest in question of law arised in suit. In case of Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi
Anwar Begum10, court held that for intervention in cases of movable or immovable property,
there must be direct interest of person in question of law in the case. Court may not allow to
intervene in a suit just on the basis of having identical issues in another case with one of the
party.
Most of the time intervention application is filed in cases having interest of large public.
No public intrest is present here in this particular case.
INTERVENTION IN PUBLIC INTREST LITIGATION
In Drupadam article 226 and 32 of the Constitution of India had created the concept of PIL.
If we look into the jurisprudence of the PIL, it allows any person from the common public to ask
for the justice from court irrespective of fact whether he or she is related to that case or not. PIL
has changed the legal system of today, the number of PIL matters is increasing every year.
The practice of intervention is very common in PIL cases. NGO or social work organizations
file the applicaHence by the abovesaid arguments it is very clear that any person can intervene
when it is a neccessary for public intrest.
OHCHR intervened in the petition filed by Mr.Freddy , only on the basis of private
vendetta .
Hence,the counsel humbly submits that the Intervention petition filed by OHCHR in the
petition filed by Mr.Freddy is maintainable.
9 Ramaiah v. Shivlingaiah,WP No.32026 of 2016
10 Razia begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum,AIR 1958 SC 886


It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Drupadam that, the Section 3 of the
Surrogacy Act,2019 is not Unconstitutional and not violating International obligations of
Drupadam.
Section3:Not withstanding anything containedin any other law forthe time being in force,
subject to the provisions of this Act, ‘every married hetero-sexual couple is entitled to have a
child with the help of surrogacy (both altruistic and commercial).
THERE SHOULD BE NO BAN ON SURROGACY
American Law Reports11 defines surrogacy as “a contractual undertaking whereby the natural or
surrogate mother, for a fee,..to bear and deliver the child to the natural father, and to terminate all
of her parental rights subsequent to the child’s birth12.”
Further, the Supreme Court of India13 has defined surrogacy as: “a method of reproduction,
whereby a woman agrees to become pregnant for the purpose of gestating and giving birth to
a child she will not raise but hand over to a contracting party.”
Surrogacy is scientific boon using borrowed eggs, sperms or womb for childbearing for some
unblessed couples. New reproductive technologies claim to help human beings through
creative interventions that reduce suffering and have the potential to transform society.
11 Baby M, Re, 1988 N.J. 77 A.L.R.4th 1.
12 Smita Chandra, Surrogacy & India, Social Science Research Network (Feb. 18, 2016),
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1762401.
13 Baby Manji Yamada v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2009 S.C. 84.

The Supreme Court in the landmark decision of Baby Manjhi, legalized commercial
surrogacy with a direction to the legislature to pass an appropriate law governing surrogacy in
India. At present, a surrogacy contract between the parties and ART Clinics Guidelines14 are
the only two guiding forces for governing this transaction.
Article 21 has a ‘positive’ content encompassing the quality of life and the right to carry on such
functions and activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of the human self.15
It is a matter of light for those women who are striving to meet their livelihood concerns and
hence, an obligation on the state to recognize or provide a legal validity to surrogacy so that
surrogates can legally opt for it to meet their financial and economic concerns. In fact, the
state has a constitutional obligation to ensure the livelihood of its citizens, by creating or
opening new avenues which may provide them with an opportunity to feed themselves. 16 The
expression ‘right to life’ under article 21 includes ‘right to livelihood’17 and ‘right to access
resources of livelihood18 as fundamental rights.
14 Indian Council of Medical Research, National Guidelines for Accreditation, Supervision and Regulation of ART
Clinics in India (2005), I.C.M.R.
15 Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 746
16 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 180.
17 Id.
18 State of H.P. v. Umed Ram, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 847.

Hence the state is under an obligation to make suitable arrangements or to recognize those
techniques that can provide an opportunity to infertile couples and those who are otherwise
unable to have their own genetically or biologically related child. This acts a blessing even to
gay couples as they will not be able to have their own offspring.
In defining the word ‘life’ in Article 21 in a broad and expansive manner, the court, in the
case of Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghvendra nath
Nandkarni19 , held that “the right to life” guaranteed by article 21 includes “the right to
livelihood”. The Supreme Court in the case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal
Corporation20 popularly known as the “Pavement Dwellers Case”, a five judge bench of the
Court now implied that ‘right to livelihood’ is borne out of the ‘right to life’, as no person can
live without the means of living, that is, the means of Livelihood.
If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part and parcel of the constitutional right to life,
the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means
of livelihood to the point of abrogation. In the case at hand, putting a ban on commmercial
surrogacy arrangements with foreign nationals is unreasonable and unconscionable since foreign
nationals are no different from the drupadam nationals.
19 Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghvendranath Nandkarni, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 109.
20 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 180.

The women who act as surrogates usually belong to the lower rungs of the society and are not
economically sound. They receive a higher remuneration for surrogacy from foreign nations as
compared to drupadam nationals. This higher amount would lead to improved living conditions,
education for their children and a healthy environment for the families that these women support.
By restricting the practice of their profession only too drupadam nationals, they are being
deprived of right to life through the imposition of such an arbitrary and unreasonable restriction
on their right to livelihood. It is in this situation that the state, as a part of its positive obligation.
under Article 21, must make provision or must recognize the mechanisms like surrogacy, so that
parties who are unable to procreate child on their own, can legitimately exercise their right to
‘reproductive choices’
Drupadam’s International obligations - It mainly consist of the priciple of non-

discrimination,equality before the law,and equal protection of the law without discriminationon
the grounds of Inter alia,race,religion,or ethnic or national origin.
As the sec 3 of the surrogacy act,2019 enshrines Article 21 by giving Right to livelihood for the
Surrogate mothers from weaker sections and also gift of parenthood for the infertile couples.So
it no way violates the constittution and country’s International obligations.
Hence , from the above arguments it is very clear that the Section 3 of the Surrogacy Act,2019 is
not Unconstitutional and not violative of International obligations of Drupadam.


It is humbly submitted that,the provisio to section 3 of the act,which excludes couple from
sindhisthan is constitutionally valid.
Section3:Notwithstandinganythingcontainedinanyotherlawforthetimebeingin force, subject to
the provisions of this Act, ‘every married hetero-sexual couple is entitled to have a child with the
help of surrogacy (both altruistic and commercial)’
Explanation: Married hetero-sexual couple means and includes only nationals of Drupadam or
at least one spouse must be a national of Drupadam. Provided hetero sexual couples belongs to
Kekayam; Panchalam; Vankadesh; Cylon
It has been alleged by the petitioners that the right to equality under Art. 14 has been
infringed as it classifies a certain section of individuals and imposes a set of rules applicable
to only them and prohibiting the other group. However, it has been contended by the
respondents that such allegations are not true and that there is a justified rationale behind
such classification.Art. 14 prescribes equality before all21 . A legislature is entitled to make

reasonable classification for purposes of legislation and treat all in one class on an equal footing.
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law 879 (7th ed. LexisNexis 2015).
21

The Supreme Court has mentioned that Art. 14 does not rule out classification for purposes of
Legislation22 . In KedarNathBajoria v. State of W.B.23 it is said The equal protection of the laws
guaranteed by article 14 of the constitution does not mean that all laws must be general in
character and universal in application and that the state is no longer to have the power of
distinguishing and classifying persons or things for the purposes of legislation.
LAW SHOULD NOT BE ARBITRARY, ARTIFICIAL OR EVASIVE. IT SHOULD BE

BASED ON INTELLIGIBLE DIFFERENTIA WHICH DISTINGUISHES PERSONS OR
THINGS THAT ARE GROUPED TOGETHER FROM OTHERS LEFT OUT OF THE
GROUP
The classification done is that of individuals i.e. in this case foreign nationals who are
prohibited from availing treatment of surrogacy Inca as compared to that of Incan couples.
The law made by Inca is not arbitrary as it has a rational basis. Surrogacy involves a contract
formed between two countries in the case of foreign nationals availing treatment of surrogacy
in Inca. It has been seen in past that such a situation has not proven to be very effective as
there have legal hurdles involving Inca. Such case was seen in the Baby Manjhi24 and Jan
Balaz25 case wherein the legal status of child born from surrogacy was unknown. A country
like Inca which is a developing country cannot indulge in legal hurdles as it already has very
pressing issues of its own. Hence to reasonably classify such individuals is justified by the
government of Drupadam.
22 V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India 51 (12th ed. Eastern Book Company 2013).
23 Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of W.B., A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 404.
24 Baby Manjhi Yamada v. Union of India, (2008) 13 S.C.C. 518.
25 Jan Balaz v. Anand Municipality, A.I.R. 2010 Guj. 21

THE DIFFERENTIA MUST HAVE A RATIONAL RELATION TO THE OBJECT
SOUGHT TO BE ACHIEVED BY THE STATUTE IN QUESTION.26
The object that intended to be achieved was that of removing any kind of legal hurdles that
might be present in the surrogacy contract that would be formed between two countries if
foreign nationals come to Drupadam for surrogacy treatment. Baby Manji Yamada case was an
example of the problems that could arise when a contract of surrogacy is formed between that
of a foreign national and that of Inca. If there is any issue regarding the status of the foreign
national couple who opt for surrogacy then it might lead to an issue regarding the legal status
of the child. Also this might bring hurdles for the country commission surrogacy.
Another issue that may arises that if one of the countries of the contracting parties of surrogacy
treatment does not allow surrogacy that would lead to a lot of legal hassles. Such was seen in the
case of Jan Balaz v. Anand Municipality27 wherein the citizenship of the children born from
surrogacy was in question as the country of the commissioning parents i.e. Germany did not
allow surrogacy. It involved the country where the surrogate was provided. Moreover such a case
would involve Inca as well as it has done in the past .thus to avoid such legal hurdles Inca has
banned foreign nationals who come to Inca to avail the treatment of surrogacy
The human right of sindhisthan couples to be parents is not being violated.
The human right of sindhisthan couples to be a parents is not being violated as she is only barred
in drupadam. She can avail the treatment of surrogacy anywhere.
26 State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, A.I.R. 1952 S.C.R. 284.
27 Jan Balaz v. Anand Municipality, A.I.R. 2010 Guj. 21.

The act is not opposed to public policy.
The act passed by the government is not opposed to public policy as it is done for public
interest.But article 32 cannot be invoked simply to adjudge the validity of any legislation15 or
an administrative action unless it adversely affects petitioner’s fundamental rights16
In the given case there is no fundamental right affected and there is no breach of the
fundamental right to equality hence article 32 should not be invoked simply to adjudge the
validity of any legislation or an administrative action.
Hence , by the above arguments it is very clear that the provisio to section 3 of the act,which
excludes couple from sindhisthan is constitutionally valid .

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS PRESENTED, ARGUMENTS

ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THE RESPONDENT HUMBLY SUBMITS
THAT THE HON’BLE BENCH BE PLEASED TO ADJUDGE AND DECLARE THAT:
1. THE PETITION FILED BY NHRC FOR ENSURING COMPENSATION TO

MRS.ANGELINA IS NOT MAINTAINABLE
2. THE INTERVENTION PETITION FILED BY OF OHCHR IN THE PETITION FILED BY

MR.FREDDY IS NOT MAINTAINABLE
3. SECTION 3 OF THE SURROGACY ACT,2019 IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND

NOT VIOLATING INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS OF DRUPADAM
4. THE PROVISO TO SECTION 3 OF THE ACT ,WHICH EXCLUDES COUPLE FROM

SINDHISTHAN IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID .
AND TO PASS ANY OTHER RELIEF, THAT THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF
DRUPADAM MAY DEEMED FIT AND PROPER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE,
EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE RESPONDENTS SHALL DULY BOUND
FOREVER PRAY.
SD/-
FOR THE RESPONDENT.

RESpon PIGEON

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RESpon PIGEON

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AGLC NHRC MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2021

AGLC NHRC MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2021

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF DRUPADAM

FILED UNDER ARTICLE-32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF DRUPADAM

IN THE MATTERS BETWEEN

COUPLE X & Z ……………………………………………………….PETITIONER 3

UNION OF DRUPADAM ……….………………………………….RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 1

2. INDEX OF ABBREVIATION 3-5

3. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 6-9

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 10-11

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 2

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 3

2. AIR All india report

9. ART Assisted Reproductive Technology

10. U.S United States

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 4

11. CPC Code of civil Procedure

14. HC High court

15. http Hypertext transfer Protocol

16. I.e In the essence of

17. ILR Indian Law Reports

18. Ins. Inserted

19. Cal. California

20. Ors. Others

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 5

22. SC Supreme court

23. SCC Supreme court cases

24. Sec. Section

25. Subs Substituted

26. Vs. Versus

27. WP Writ petition

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 6

1. Arvind Datar commentary on the constitution of India Vol.2,2nd edition,2010, Lexis

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 7

1. The Constitution of India,1950

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 8

1.Hussain Reddy vs Executive Engineer 11 Oct 2002

2.Tilokchand v. Munshi, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 898;

5.Chiranjeet Lal Chaudhary v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 41.

6. Ramaiah v. Shivlingaiah,WP No.32026 of 2016

7. Razia begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum,AIR 1958 SC 886

8.Baby Manji Yamada v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2009 S.C. 84.

10.Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 180

12. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghvendranath Nandkarni,

14.State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, A.I.R. 1952 S.C.R. 284.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 9

Section3:Notwithstandinganythingcontainedinanyotherlawforthetimebeingin force, subject to

help of surrogacy (both altruistic andcommercial)’

access surrogacy in Drupadam.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 10

It contended that the Surrogacy Act is unconstitutional and a violation of international

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 11

1.WHETHER THE PETITION FILED BY NHRC FOR ENSURING COMPENSATION

2.WHETHER THE INTERVENTION PETITION FILED BY OF OHCHR IN THE

3.WHETHER SECTION 3 OF THE SURROGACY ACT,2019 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

4.WHETHER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 3 OF THE ACT ,WHICH EXCLUDES

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 12

THE RESPONDENT HEREBY SUBMITS THIS MEMORANDUM FOR THE

THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 13

1.WHETHER THE PETITION FILED BY NHRC FOR ENSURING COMPENSATION

2.WHETHER THE INTERVENTION PETITION FILED BY OF OHCHR IN THE