1

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
MOOT 2021

IN THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WRIT PETITION NO.539 OF 2021

IN THE MATTER OF-

Mr. X

PETITIONER

V.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & Ors

RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER

 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………III
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………IV
STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………V
ISSUES RAISED………………………………………………………....….VI
1. If the Supreme Court of India has the jurisdiction
2. If the hospital DERLY’s Private Medical Hospital was liable for Medical
Negligence
3. If Right to Health of Mr. X is violated
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………..... VI
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………… VII

PRAYER……………………………………………………………………...X
 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

INDIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

• Shah v. State of Bihar

• Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi
• Paschima Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity & Others Vs. State of West Bengal & Others
• Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa vs. State of Maharashtra.
• Ranjit Kumar Das vs. Medical Officer

WEBSITES VISITED

1. INDIAN KANOON
2. LEGAL SERVICES INDIA
3. INSIGHTS ON INDIA

DATABASES

1. SCC ONLINE
 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner herein has invoked the Writ Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court
under article 32 of the Constitution of India. Article 32 read 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 clauses (
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 )
4. The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise
provided

For by this Constitution”1

1
INDIAN KANOON- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/981147/
(LAST VISITED 26 DECEMBER 2021)
 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Mr. X sustained serious head injuries and a brain hemorrhage after falling off a
train. Several hospitals turned him away because they lacked adequate medical
facilities or did not have a vacant bed to accommodate him.

2. He had to seek medical treatment at a private hospital, incurring costly

expenses. He went to DERLY's Private Medical Hospital in Pune for treatment,
and while there, he was given an injection.

3. The injection was given to him incorrectly because the nurse accidentally
gave the injection that was supposed to be given to the AIDS patient.

4. He suffered a more serious medical injury and was hospitalized for more than
three months. He incurred a hospital bill of approximately Rs 70 lakh rupees.

5. Mr. X has now petitioned the Supreme Court of India, claiming that the State
was negligent in providing him with the right to health
 6

ISSUES RAISED

If Right to Health of Mr. X is violated

II

If the Supreme Court of India has the jurisdiction

III

If the hospital DERLY’s Private Medical Hospital was liable for

medical negligence

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

• The Supreme Court of India has the Jurisdiction to deal with

this particular case.
Supreme court has the right to issue writs in case of
violation of fundamental rights.
• Right to Health of Mr.X is violated by the Government
hospitals.
 7

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I
The Supreme Court of India has the Original Jurisdiction to
deal with this particular case.

• Fundamental rights are the basic human rights established in the Indian Constitution
and assured to all citizens. They are implemented without regard to race, religion, sex,
or other factors. Importantly, courts have the authority to enforce fundamental rights.

• Article 32 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court broad original jurisdiction
over the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The Supreme Court also serves as the
guardian of fundamental rights, declaring any law that violates these rights
unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court finds that the fundamental rights guaranteed by
the Constitution are being violated, Article 32 of the Constitution empowers it to issue
writs to impose them.

• The Supreme Court has the authority to issue Writs for the enforcement of
fundamental rights under Article 32 of the Constitution.

• In this case Mr.X’s Fundamental Right is violated as through Judicial interpretation

the Right to Health is said to be a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of Indian
Constitution.This statement is already proved through the above argument.

• In the case of Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court ruled that where there
is an infringement of the right to life and personal liberty, the aggrieved person or any
public spiritual individual can file a petition with the Supreme Court for the
enforcement of the rights infringed by the state action. If the state fails to protect the
citizen's life or liberty, the courts have the authority to award compensatory relief.2

• In this case the Supreme Court also established a significant landmark in Indian
Human Rights Jurisprudence by articulating compensatory remedy for infringements
of Article 21. Since then, the court has initiated to award monetary compensation.

2
Rudul Shah V State of Bihar (AIR 1983 SC 1086) - https://indiankanoon.org/doc/810491/
(LAST VISITED 26 DECEMBER 2021)
 8

II

Right to Health of Mr.X is violated by the Government

hospitals.

• Everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living for his or her own and his or
her family's health and well-being, which would include food, clothing, housing,
medical care, and other necessary social services, as well as the right to security in the
event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, or other lack of
livelihood due to circumstances beyond his or her control.
• According to Article 21 of the Constitution – “no person shall be deprived of his/her
life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.3
• The Constitution of India does not expressly recognize Right to Health as a
fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution (Fundamental Rights). However,
through judicial interpretation, this has been read into the fundamental right to life &
personal liberty (Article 21) and is now considered an inseparable part of the Right to
Life.
• Now, the state is required to provide a person with all of the rights necessary for the
enjoyment of the right to life in all of its facets. . The right to health and access to
medical treatment has been added to the long list of rights enshrined in Article 21
• In Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi AIR 1981
the Supreme court held that in Article 21 life means a life with human dignity and not
mere survival or animal existence.4
• While broadening the scope of Art. 21 and the government's responsibility to provide
medical assistance to everyone in the country, the Supreme Court held in Paschima
Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity & Others Vs. State of West Bengal & Others that article
21 imposes an obligation on the state to protect everyone's right to life. Thus, the
preservation of human life is of the greatest priority. The state-run government
hospitals are obligated to provide medical help in order to save human lives. Failure

3
ARTICLE 21 -https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1199182/
(LAST VISITED 1 JANUARY 2022)
4
Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi AIR 1981
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/78536/
(LAST VISITED 31 DECEMBER 2021)
 9

of a government hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of

that kind of treatment violates his right to life guaranteed by Art. 21.5

Therefore in this case Mr.X was turned away by various hospitals because the hospitals had
inadequate medical facilities or did not have a vacant bed to accommodate him.This shows
that the Government Hospitals in Pune failed to provide proper healthcare facility to Mr.X,
which violates his right to health under article 21.

• In the case of Ranjit Kumar Das vs. Medical Officer, ESI Hospital, the hospital was
ordered to pay compensation for failing to provide timely medical treatment to the
patient and refusing to admit the patient with acute pain in the abdomen due to a lack
of bed availability. 6

• Mr. X also has the right to seek compensation because the government hospitals failed
to provide timely medical treatment to Mr. X and refused to admit Mr. X due to a lack
of beds. However, because government hospitals fall under the purview of the state
government, the state government is vicariously liable to compensate on its behalf.
This statement is supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Achutrao Haribhau
Khodwa vs. State of Maharashtra.7
In this case the Supreme Court stated that running a hospital is a welfare activity undertaken
by the government. The state would be held vicariously liable for any damages incurred as a
result of the negligence of doctors and other staff. Using this principle, the Supreme Court
held the state of Haryana liable for the doctor's negligence in performing a sterilization
procedure in a government hospital, which resulted in the birth of an unwanted child.
Government Hospitals of Pune's inability to provide adequate facilities to Mr.X, violated his
fundamental right, namely the Right to Health under Article 21, the Government Hospitals of
Pune fall under the jurisdiction of the State Government of Maharashtra, and the State
Government of Maharashtra is obligated to pay Mr.X compensation.

5
1996 4 SCC 37.
(LAST VISITED 1 JANUARY 2022)
6
Ranjit Kumar Das vs. Medical Officer, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/209292/
LAST VISITED - 27 DECEMBER 2021
7
(1996) 2 SCC 634; (1996) 4 CTJ 950 (SC)
(LAST VISITED 1 JANUARY 2022)
 10

PRAYER

IN THE LIGHT OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED, CASES AND AUTHORITIES

CITED ABOVE, THE PETITIONER HUMBLY REQUESTS THE HON‟BLE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA, TO ADMIT THE WRIT PETITION, AND IN SO DOING, ADJUDGE
AND DECLARE THAT:

1. This particular case is within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India

2. Mr. X's right to health has been violated by government hospitals, and he should be
compensated by the Maharashtra state government.

3. Derly's Private Medical Hospital was liable for medical negligence while treating
Mr.X, and the Nurse's licence should be revoked, Mr.X should be compensated, and
the doctor and nurse should be imprisoned in accordance with the provisions of the
IPC.

AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION OR RELIEF THAT IT MAY DEEM FIT
IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, EQUITY AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL DUTY BOUND FOREVER
PRAY.

COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER

THIS MEMORIAL ONLY INCLUDES ARGUMENTS RELATED TO ISSUE 1&2 . ISSUE NO.3 IS COVERED BY COUNSEL 2