ALLIANCE MOOT COURT SOCIETY

INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF GRINGOTTS

WRIT PETITION NO:----/2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

MR.WEASELY.................................................................................................PETITIONER

Vs

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

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pg.No.

1. LIST OF ABBREVATIONS. 1

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. 2

I. TABLE OF CASES. 2

II. CONSTITUTION. 2

III. STATUTES. 2

IV. DATABASE. 2

3. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 3

4. STATEMENT OF ISSUE. 4

5. SUMMARY OF ARUGEMENTS.

6. ARGUMENTS ADAVNCED. 5

1. WHETHER THE PETITION CAN BE ALLOWED TO FILED UNDER 5

ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION?

2. WHETHER THERE IS ANY VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL 6

RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION

3. EUTHANASIA IS A VIOLATION INDIAN MEDICAL COUNCIL 6

ACT. 1956
4. EUTHANASI IS OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 300,306 AND 309 OF 7
INDIAN PENAL CODE.

7. PRAYER 8

2
LIST OF ABBREVATION

& And

AIR All India Repoter

Art. Article

Hon’ble Honourable

No. Number

LJ Law Journal

Sec. Section

Sc Supreme court

UOI Union of India

Vs Verses
.
e.g Example

PVS Premanent Vegetative State

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. TABLE OF CASES

CASES CITATION

Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs Union AIR2011SC1290, 2011(59)BLJR561

of India& Ors
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab 1996 AIR 946

P. Rathinam v. UOI 1994 AIR 1844, 1994 SCC (3) 394

Sudheswari v state of Assam 1981 Cri Lj 1005

II. CONSTITUTIONS

1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

1
III. STATUTES

1. INDIAN PENAL CODE ,1860

2. INDIAN MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT,1956

IV. LEGAL DATABASES

 www.scconline.com
 www.indiankanoon.com
 www.lexisnexis.com
 www.lawctopus.com
 www.manupatra.com

_____________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS
_____________________________________________________________________

1. The country of Gringotts is primarily an agricultural based economy. The

Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of the State Policy enshrined under the
Constitution hold a premier position in the legal system of the country. Having
suffered hugely under the colonial rule for hundreds of years, the country has shown
tremendous ambition and development post its independence.

2. The govt. hospitals in Gringotts are poor in terms of life saving equipment. However,
there are private health facilities but those are too costly to be afforded by common
mass.

3. Mr. Weasley, a citizen of Gringotts and a resident of Azkaban,(capital of Gringotts)

who is paid employee in a private firm, lives with his wife Mrs.Weasley and three

2
 children. Mrs. Weasley was diagnosed with a rare spinal disease. She was admitted to
Gringotts Institute of Medical Sciences (GIMS), controlled by central government.

4. Mrs. Weasley has been under expert medical treatment and prescribed lifesaving
drugs at a cost of Rs. 95,000 /-per month approximately which has incurred a heavy
loss upon the family. To cope up with the financial crisis and for continuation of
treatment, the marginal land owned by the family has been sold and the residential
house had to be mortgaged.

5. Mrs. Weasley is on life support system and is advised by doctors to continue with the
treatment. She suffers excruciating pain on account of her medical condition and has
expressed her desire to die. The family, on Mrs. Weasley’s request, 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 be a penal
offence. As a result, the family was, within a short span of time, reduced to an
extreme state of impoverishment.

6. In December 2019, Mr. Weasley filed a writ petition in Supreme Court of Gringotts,
praying for a direction to the medical superintendent of GIMS 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.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES.

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE PETITION CAN BE ALLOWED TO FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF

INDIAN CONSTITUTION?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THERE IS ANY VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER

ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION?

ISSUE 3

EUTHANASIA IS A VIOLATION INDIAN MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT. 1956.

3
 ISSUE 4

EUTHANASI IS OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 300,306 AND 309 OF INDIAN PENAL

CODE.

___________________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY OF ARUGUMENTS

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE PETITION CAN BE ALLOWED TO FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF

CONSTITUTION?

In The Present Case there is no violation fundamental rights that ensured by the Constitution
of Gringotts and The petition cannot be filled under Art. 32 of Constitution so the case shall
be dismissed by the Hon’ble court at the earliest.

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THERE IS ANY VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER

ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION?

The Fundamental Rights given by Article 21 of the constitution gurantees right to life and
does not give right to die and passive euthanasia can be performed only to the person who is
in a permanent vegetative state (pvs) and coma.

ISSUE 3

EUTHANASIA IS A VIOLATION INDIAN MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT. 1956.

Medical Council Act, 1956 also incidentally deals with the issue Under Section 20A read
with Section 33(m) of the Act. Thereunder the act of euthanasia has been classified as
unethical except in cases where the life support system is used only to continue the cardio-
pulmonary actions of the body.

ISSUE 4

EUTHANASI IS OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 300,306 AND 309 OF INDIAN PENAL

CODE.

In cases of euthanasia or mercy killing thereis an indirect intention on the part of the doctor to
kill the patient, such cases would the exception 5 to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and
the doctor will be held liable under section 304, IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to
murder.

4
___________________________________________________________________________

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE PETITION CAN BE ALLOWED TO FILED UNDER ARTICLE

32 OF CONSTITUTION?

If at all there exist any violation of fundamental right, then the case shall be instituted
in the high court, as the apex court, in the case of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs
Union of India& Ors1, has laid down that In our opinion, it is the High Court under
Article 2262 of the Constitution which can grant approval for withdrawal of life
support to such an incompetent person”. The court in the abovementioned case
devised a detailed procedure to be followed that is When such an application is filed
the chief justice of the concerned high court should forthwith constitute a bench of at
least two judges who should decide to grant approval or not. A committee of the
reputed doctors to be nominated by the bench who will give report regarding the
condition of the patient. Before giving the verdict, a notice regarding the report should
be given to the close relatives and the state. After hearing the parties, the high court
can give its verdict. Thus court have provided various essentials requirement to be
followed while filling the petition for the removal of life supporting system and one
cannot waive them by filling in Supreme Court.

Thus the petition shall be dismissed

2. WHETHER THERE IS ANY VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION?

The constitution bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab 3 held
that both euthanasia and assisted suicide are not lawful in India. That decision
overruled the earlier two judge bench decision of the same court in P. Rathinam v.
UOI4. In Gian Kaur's case recent Constitution Bench decision of this Court
(videparagraphs 22 and 23) it was held that the right to life guaranteed by Article 21
of the Constitution does not include the right to die. Shri F.S. Nariman submitted in
Gian Kaur v.State of Punjab that Article 21 cannot be construed to include within it
the so called ‘right to die’ since Article 21 guarantees protection of life and liberty
and not its extinction.

1
. AIR2011SC1290, 2011(59)BLJR561
2
Constitution Of India, 1950
3
.Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab 1996 AIR 946
4
.1994 AIR 1844, 1994 SCC (3) 394

5
 On 7th March 2011 in Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, 5 the Supreme
Court legalised passive euthanasia by means of the withdrawal of life support to
patients in a permanent vegetative state. The court stated that its decision becomes the
law of the land until the Indian Parliament enacts a suitable legislation. An important
point to be noted here is (passive euthanasia) withdrawal of life supporting is to be
done to the person who is in a permanent vegetative state (psv) and coma. But in the
present case the person status of psv was not given by expert medical team.

3. EUTHANASIA IS A VIOLATION INDIAN MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT. 1956.

Indian Medical Council Act, 19566 also incidentally deals with the issue at hand.
Under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Act of 1956,
Section 20A reads as:
(1) The Council may prescribe standards of professional conduct and etiquette and a
code of ethics for medical practitioners.
(2) Regulations made by the Council under sub-section (1) may specify which
violations thereof shall constitute infamous conduct in any professional respect, that
is to say, professional misconduct, and such provisions shall have effect not
withstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force.
Section 30(m) reads as:
(m) the standards of professional conduct and etiquette and code of ethics to be
observed by medical practitioners;
The Medical Council of India has recently amended 27the code of medical ethics for
medical practitioners. There under the act of euthanasia has been classified as
unethical except in cases where the life support system is used only to continue the
cardio-pulmonary actions of the body.

4. EUTHANASI IS OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 300,306 AND 309 OF INDIAN

PENAL CODE.

As euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are both absolutely illegal in India.A

physician who provides lethal drugs so that another person can end his life
will be liable as abettor of helping him commit suicide. In India, abetment of suicide
(sec.306, IPC) and attempt to commit suicide (sec.309, IPC)7 are both criminal
offences.
However, a doctor who tries to kill a patient at his request will fall under the
exception 5 to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and the doctor will be held liable
under section 304, IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

5
Supra note 1
6
.Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
7
.Indian Penal Code,1860

6
 In Sudheswari v state of Assam8 a three year old child was killed by her mother and
among the defences stated by her, one was that the little child had been done to death
because she was suffering from illness badly and that the accused could not bear the
trouble of looking after her and thus the court was asked to decide whether mercy
killing was an exception to murder available in India. The court in case clearly held
that euthanasia is not an exception to the offence of murder.

PRAYERS

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:

I. Application of the petitioner under Art 32 is not maintable.

II. There is no violation of the fundamental rights enshrised under part lll of the
Constitution of India and hence the petition may be dismissed

And pass any other order that it deem fit in the best interest of Justice, Equity and Good
conscience

Place: s/d__________________

Date: (counsel for the respondent)

8
.1981 Cri Lj 1005

7
8