Swami Vivekanand Subharti University, Meerut: Team Code: P-08

IN-HOUSE MOOT COURT COMPETETION,2023
Team Code: P-08
SWAMI VIVEKANAND SUBHARTI UNIVERSITY, MEERUT
SARDAR PATEL SUBHARTI INSTITUTE OF LAW
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF PERUCIA
In the matter of
ABRAHAM
(Appellant)
VS.
SHASHWAT CHOPRA
(Respondent)
SUBMITTED TO: MRS. AFREEN ALMAS SUBMITTED BY: RIYA AGARWAL

(ASST. PROFESSOR) B.A.LL.B., X SEMESTER
DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL APPEARING ON THE BEHALF OF

APPELLANT
Memorandum on the behalf of Appellant Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
• LIST OF ABBREVIATION ………………………………..… .......…………………3
• INDEX OF AUTHORITIES …………………………………….…........……………4

• List of Statues ……………………………………………….…….......………4
• List of Books ………………………………………………………..….......…4
• List of Internet Sources ……………………………………………….............4
• STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ………………………………………….........…5
• STATEMENT OF FACTS ………………………………….……………….....…..6-8
• ISSUES RAISED... …………………………………………………………...............9
• SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ……………………………………………... ……..10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 11-17
ISSUE1. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE SUPREME

COURT OF PERUCIA?
ISSUE2. WHETHER THE SURROGACY CONTRACT WAS VALID BETWEEN MR.

AND MRS. CHOPRA AND MS. KHAN UNDER THE SURROGACY(REGULATION)
ACT, 2021?
PRAYER 18

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIR All India Reporter

All. Allahabad High Court
Anr. Another
An Andhra Pradesh
Bom Bombay
Cal Calcutta High Court
Cir. Circular
EC European Cases
Ed. Edition
i.e. That is
ILR International Law
Reports
J&K Jammu & Kashmir
Mad Madras High Court
Nag Nagpur
No. Number
Ors. Others
Pat Patna High Court
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
Sec./S. Section
v. Versus
WB West Bengal
www. World Wide Web

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
LIST OF STATUES:
• The Contitution of Perucia, 1950
• The Surrogacy Act, 2021
• The Hindu Adopton Act, 1956
LIST OF BOOKS
• D. J. De, Constitution of India, 2nd Edition.
• Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the- Constitution of India, 8th Edition (2008).
• P. K. Majumdar & R. P. Kataria, Commentary on the- Constitution of India, 11th
Edition.
• Kumud Desai, Indian law of Marriage and Divorce, 10th Edition (2017).
LIST OF DICTIONARY
• Black, H.C., Black`s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition (1999)
• Oxford, Advance Learner`s Dictionary, 6th Edition. 2006
JOURNALS REFFERED
• ALL INDIA REPORTER
• CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL
• LAW REPORTER
• SUPREMECOURT CASES
INTERNET SOURCES
• www.scconline.com
• www.barandbech.com
• www.livelaw.com
• www.indiakanoon.com
• www.casemine.com

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This Honorable Supreme Court of Perucia has the jurisdiction to try, adjudicate and entertain
this matter under Art.1331 of Constitution of Perucia, 1950.
1 Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in regard to civil matters
(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceeding of a
High Court in the territory of India if the High Court certifies under Article 134A
(a) that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance; and
(b) that in the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court
(2) Notwithstanding anything in Article 132, any party appealing to the Supreme Court under clause ( 1 ) may
urge as one of the grounds in such appeal that a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this
Constitution has been wrongly decided
(3) Notwithstanding anything in this article, no appeal shall, unless Parliament by law otherwise provid es, lie to
the Supreme Court from the judgment, decree or final order of one Judge of a High Court
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. That, Mr. and Mrs. Chopra, a married couple (aged 38 & 37 respectively), registered
under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, belonged to a reputed industrial family, and are eminent
on social media for their philanthropic activities. The couple found themselves in despair upon
finding out that they were not capable of conception, owing to infertility. Even the doctors had
given a certificate regarding their inability to conceive, along with an indication necessitating
gestational surrogacy and likewise, suggested them to visit an ART Clinic for obtaining a child
through surrogacy.
2. That, Mr. and Mrs. Chopra were informed about the efficient procedure of surrogacy being
practiced in the EBC Hospital, based out of Cati, the capital of Perucia. Based on this, the
couple decided to get a child through surrogacy. Being further informed about the changes
brought about in the The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, both Mr. and Mrs. Chopra
approached blood relatives on their respective sides of the family to convince them to act as a
surrogate mother. However, to their further despair, women on both sides of the family refused
to carry Mr. Chopra’s child in their womb. after executing a Non- Disclosure and
Confidentiality Agreement, an appointment was booked with the leading doctor in this field.
3. That, Dr. Goswami. After one week of the said approval, EBC Hospital found a potential
candidate in Ms. Khan, and she was soon approached by Dr. Goswami requesting her to carry
Mr. Chopra’s surrogate child. Ms. Khan, a widow, aged about 32 years, was already a mother
to a 3-year-old daughter, named Alia. After deliberation and owing to her financial crunch, Ms.
Khan accepted the offer and was willing to carry the child. Soon, Mr. and Mrs. Chopra were
informed of this proposition, and they willingly accepted Ms. Khan to be the surrogate mother.
Thereafter, they applied for a certificate of recommendation under Section 4 of The Surrogacy
(Regulation) Act, 2021 which was duly granted to them by the Board.
4. That, An agreement was signed between the intending parents (Mr. and Mrs. Chopra) and
the surrogate mother (Ms. Khan) with the same terms and conditions mentioned above, and
duly registered with the Office of Registrar after payment of the requisite stamp duty. Further,
the intending parents were willing to assist Ms. Khan over and beyond the contractual
expenses, overreaching the scope of altruistic surrogacy.

5. That, however, one fine day, during the seventh month of Ms. Khan’s pregnancy, Mr. and
Mrs. Chopra hailed their fate after they naturally conceived a child. In the last week of her eight
months of pregnancy. One fine night, just before absconding to a very private and low life, she
sat down and wrote a letter informing the hospital and the intending parents about her
disappearance.
6. That, Mrs. Chopra gave birth to a boy child and named him Shashwat. They continued with
their lives and remained a happy family. Ms. Khan also gave birth to a boy child and named
him Abram and all three of them lived in their humble dwellings in a suburb, Sicily. He came
across a copy of the contract signed between Mr. and Mrs. Chopra and Ms. Khan and realized
that Ms. Khan was not his biological mother. It was Mr. & Mrs. Chopra who were his
biological parents. Abram was quick to take a bus and travel to Cati, where the Chopra family
resided.
7. That, After reaching the residence of the Chopra’s, he was informed by an estate manager
that Mr. & Mrs. Chopra had left for heavenly abode and now all the properties and businesses
of Mr. & Mrs. Chopra belong to Shashwat, being the only successor. Abram had come to meet
his parents, however, in their absence, he staked a claim in Mr. Chopra’s properties as a
successor based on the Surrogacy Contract’s clause (VI) before Shashwat.
8. That, Abram, with the help of his advocate filed a civil suit in the District Court of Cati,
seeking a declaration that all the self-acquired property of Mr. & Mrs. Chopra belonged to him
and thereby, sought their possession. f.Under the ART Act & Surrogacy Act, the surrogate
child has rights in the property of the commissioning couple and thus, Abram is a successor
and a rightful claimant to fifty percent of the properties owned by the Chopras.
9. That, Highly aggrieved by the Civil Court’s order, Shashwat appealed in the High Court of
Cati, which overturned the Civil Court’s order stating that since Ms. Khan accepted money for
the education of her daughter, Alia, the surrogacy contract became commercial in nature.
Hence, being contrary to the law, the contract, including clause (VI) was held to be void.
Moreover, there was an implied termination of the contract by the act of the parties and Abram
stood adopted by Ms. Khan by implied permission from the Chopras, as they made no
endeavour to search for Ms. Khan by approaching the authorities and lodging FIR etc.
10. That, However, the counsel of Abram through an oral application made before the High
Court obtained a certificate to appeal before the Supreme Court of Perucia under the

Constitution of Perucia. Based on the said certificate, Abram approaches the Supreme Court of
Perucia.
11. Hence, lies the appeal.

ISSUE RAISED

COURT OF PERUCIA?

ACT, 2021?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

COURT OF PERUCIA?
The counsel for the Appellant humbly submits before this court that the Appeal filed by
Abraham is maintainable as it does fit in the criteria of a questioning a substantive question of
law. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court by the counsel on the behalf on petitioner
that the present Appeal is maintainable under Article 133 of the Constitution of Perucia since,
there stands a substantive question of law and opinion of Supreme court is needed on the matter
adjudicated in High Court.

ACT, 2021?
The counsel for the appellant humbly submits before this Honorable Court that the surrogacy
contract was valid between Mr. and Mr. Chopra and Ms. Khan under the Surrogacy
(Regulation) Act, 2021. The counsel on the behalf of the appellant humbly wants to submit
that, An agreement was signed between the intending parents (Mr. and Mrs. Chopra) and the
surrogate mother (Ms. Khan) with the same terms and conditions mentioned thereafter, and
duly registered with the Office of Registrar after payment of the requisite stamp dut y. Further,

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
COURT OF PERUCIA?
The counsel for the Appellant humbly submits before this court that the Appeal filed by
Abraham is maintainable as it does fit in the criteria of a questioning a substantive question of
law. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court by the counsel on the behalf on petitioner
that the present Appeal is maintainable under Article 133 of the Constitution of Perucia since,
there stands a substantive question of law and opinion of Supreme court is needed on the matter
adjudicated in High Court.
The counsel on the behalf of the appellant humbly wants to submit that, , the facts clearly states
that irrespective of the changes made in the surrogacy regulation act, 2021 they do not know
who would act as a surrogate mother, the couple approached the ART Clinic of the EBC
Hospital (duly registered under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021), whereby, after
executing a Non-Disclosure and Confidentiality Agreement, an appointment was booked with
the leading doctor in this field, Dr. Goswami. After being informed of the advantages and side
effects of the procedure, the couple was convinced that getting a child through surrogacy is a
safe and effective procedure. Thereafter, they decided to hire a surrogate mother. After one
week of the said approval, EBC Hospital found a potential candidate in Ms. Khan, and she was
soon approached by Dr. Goswami requesting her to carry Mr. Chopra’s surrogate child. Ms.
Khan, a widow, aged about 32 years, was already a mother to a 3-year-old daughter, named
Alia. After deliberation and owing to her financial crunch, Ms. Khan accepted the offer and
was willing to carry the child. Soon, Mr. and Mrs. Chopra were informed of this proposition,
and they willingly accepted Ms. Khan to be the surrogate mother. Thereafter, they applied for
a certificate of recommendation under Section 4 of The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021
which was duly granted to them by the Board.
An agreement was signed between the intending parents (Mr. and Mrs. Chopra) and the
duly registered with the Office of Registrar after payment of the requisite stamp duty. Further,

Ms. Khan took an unpaid maternity leave from her employer and started focusing on keeping
her physical and mental balance, as mandated in the contract. Ms. Khan frequently visited the
hospital for regular check-ups and met Dr. Goswami for his recommendations. Further, Mr.
and Mrs. Chopra frequently enquired about her well-being and Ms. Khan was more than
responsive to the couple in this regard.
However, one fine day, during the seventh month of Ms. Khan’s pregnancy, Mr. and Mrs.
Chopra hailed their fate after they naturally conceived a child. Even when Ms. Khan gone
missing Mr. & Mrs. Chopra didn’t bother enough to go to certain authorities for their own
child, Mr. and Mrs. Chopra personally searched for Ms. Khan’s whereabouts for a few weeks,
but to no avail. However, they did not approach authorities for help in searching Ms. Khan.
I.1. Status of a Surrogate in Perucia
In Perucia the surrogate is not considered as the legal mother. As per PCMR Guidelines 2005,
a surrogate mother cannot be genetically related to the child . She is legally and psychologically
counselled that she will not be having any rights over the child. Her rights and obligations
towards the intended parents as well the child is formulated in the gestational surrogacy
agreement. Moreover, a child born through surrogacy shall be presumed to be the legitimate
child of the intended parents/s and shall have all the legal rights to parental support, inheritance
and all other privileges which a child born naturally to the intended parents/s would have had.
A child born out of a surrogacy procedure is presumed to be the biological child of the intending
couple. Such a child shall have all the rights and privileges available to a natural child under
any law for the time being in force, the child to be adopted must be actually given and taken in
adoption by the parents or guardian concerned or under their authority with intent to transfer
the child from the family of its birth.
As per the Perucia Council of Medical Research (PCMR Guidelines) the surrogate mother
should not be biologically connected to the child (Guideline 1.2.33).The Perician Law
recognises the Intended mother only as the legal mother in surrogacy arrangements. Also
Guidelines 3.10.1 and 3.16.1 make it very much clear that the intended parents only would be
the legal parents of the child with all the attendance rights, parental responsibility etc. Also
Guideline 3.5.4 states that the surrogate mother shall not be the legal mother and the birth
certificate shall be in the name of the genetic parents. 3.5.5 Provides that the surrogate mother
shall relinquish in writing all the parental rights over the child. India is very soon going to enact
its legislation on the field of Assisted Reproductive Technology. The Proposed act also has the
same favourable provisions.
I.2. The Legal Position Under Perucian Law If The Surrogate Mother Changed Her Mind
Upon Birth And Refused To Hand Over The Child To Intended Parents
However, such instances have not been witnessed in the Perucian scenario but still if a situation
like this arises then the surrogacy contract can be the saviour. The contract must clearly state
that the child /children born out of surrogacy shall be the legal children of the intended parents
and that the surrogate shall have no rights over the child/children. The said contract can then
become the basis of legal action against the surrogate mother also the law pertaining to
surrogacy i.e. ICMR Guidelines also support the intended parents only as the legal parents.
Status of Surrogate child, A child born out of a surrogacy procedure is presumed to be the
biological child of the intending couple. Such a child shall have all the rights and privileges
available to a natural child under any law for the time being in force, the child to be adopted
must be actually given and taken in adoption by the parents or guardian concerned or under
their authority with intent to transfer the child from the family of its birth.
I.3. Procedure for the Adoption
Under the Perucian legal system the matters related to adoption are dealt under the Hindu
adoption act, 1956 As per the provisions of this act, an application can be made to the welfare
agency of the child and get themselves registered. After this, the intention of the parents is
determined by an officer of the agency who conducts an interview in this regard. When the
supposed child to be adopted is finally decided by the parents, the proceedings in the court
started. Lastly, the court hears the whole matter and the intention of the parties along with the
necessary formalities, the adoption is finalized and the child becomes a legally adopted one.


ACT, 2021?
The counsel for the Appellant humbly submits before this Honorable Court that the surrogacy
contract was valid between Mr. and Mr. Chopra and Ms. Khan under the Surrogacy
(Regulation) Act, 2021. The counsel on the behalf of the appellant humbly wants to submit
that, An agreement was signed between the intending parents (Mr. and Mrs. Chopra) and the
duly registered with the Office of Registrar after payment of the requisite stamp dut y. Further,
The terms and conditions for the contract were negotiated upon, and finally, the couple agreed
to compensate upon the following:
I. I.Market rate for the cost of surrogacy at INR xyz
II. II.Market rate for the cost of all unsuccessful attempts of surrogacy at INR xyz
III. III.Market rate of medical costs for the surrogate mother at INR xyz
IV. IV.Market rate for each hospital visit for the surrogate mother
V. V.Market rate for the cost of medical tests for surrogate mother at INR xyz
VI. VI.Market rate for the cost of a hospital room and other services during childbirth at
INR xyz
VII. VII.Cost of the surrogate mother being unable to work during pregnancy at INR xyz
VIII. VIII.Insurance coverage for surrogate mother covering postpartum delivery
complications up to thirty-six months after delivery at INR xyz
IX. IX.Expenses for meeting the educational cost of the first child of the surrogate mother,
Alia, up to her graduation
X. X.Miscellaneous expenses to the extent of INR xyz
Other relevant terms and conditions casting an obligation over the contracting parties involved:
I. I.The surrogate mother to be of a fit and healthy condition, both mentally and
physically, and to remain to be fit and healthy and not work during the term of
pregnancy.
II. II.The surrogate mother is to bear the child in good -will and after the birth, to surrender
the child and relinquish all the rights to the intending parents.
III. III.The intending parents, under no circumstances, to decline acceptance of the child
after birth, irrespective of its physical or mental condition.
IV. IV.The surrogate mother is to be less than 35 years of age.
V. V.The surrogate mother is to be free from the consumption of alcohol, cigarettes, or
any other form of intoxication.
VI. VI.The Surrogate (unborn) Child to be the successor to all the properties belonging to
the Chopra’s.
An agreement was signed between the intending parents (Mr. and Mrs. Chopra) and the
surrogate mother (Ms. Khan) with the same terms and conditions mentioned above, and duly
registered with the Office of Registrar after payment of the requisite stamp duty. Further, the
intending parents were willing to assist Ms.Khan over and beyond the contractual expenses,
overreaching the scope of altruistic surrogacy. The Plaintiff is a lawful issue of Mr. & Mrs.
Chopra. The contract remained valid as it was altruistic in nature. Clause (VI) cannot act as a
will as it was done in ignorance of the fact that Ms. & Mrs. Chopra can naturally become
parents. The contract was never repudiated expressly by the parties. Ms. Khan cannot
unilaterally adopt the child without an express permission from the Chopras. Under the ART
Act & Surrogacy Act, the surrogate child has rights in the property of the commissioning couple
and thus, Abram is a successor and a rightful claimant to fifty percent of the properties owned
by the Chopras.
As well as in Section 7 it’s states that “The intending couple or intending woman shall not
abandon the child, born out of a surrogacy procedure, whether within India or outside, for any
reason whatsoever, including but not restricted to, any genetic defect, birth defect, any other
medical condition, the defects developing subsequently, sex of the child or conception of more
than one baby and the like.”Even thought the surrogate mother took the child, the intended
parents should take in the responsibility as the parent to search for the surrogate mother and
the unborn baby with the Competent Authority but the intended couple didn’t do thar show
casing that they were ignorant as well as neglect towards the surrogate child, And being
ignorant and neglect shows that the indending couple intents to abandon the child.

II.1. Altruistic Surrogacy
This type of surrogacy is where the surrogate receives no financial reward, but only the
pregnancy and labour expenses, for her pregnancy and the relinquishment of the child. The
pregnancy and labour expenses include medical bills, maternity clothing, and other related
expenses which are paid by intended parents.
II.2. Surrogacy ( Regulation) Bill 2021
It is humbly submitted that This was enacted in 2020. Features of the Surrogacy (Regulation)
Bill, 2020 are as follows:
• It provides for the constitution of surrogacy boards at the national as well as state levels
to ensure effective regulation.
• It seeks to allow ethical altruistic surrogacy to the intending infertile Indian married
couple between the age of 23-50 years for females and 26-55 years for males.
• Only Indian couples can opt for surrogacy in the country.
• It makes it mandatory for the couple to obtain a certificate of essentiality and also a
certificate of eligibility before going ahead with surrogacy.
• It also provides that intending couples should not abandon the child born out of
surrogacy under any condition. The newborn child shall be entitled to all rights and
privileges that are available to a natural child.
• The Bill also seeks to regulate the functioning of surrogacy clinics. All surrogacy clinics
in the country need to be registered by the appropriate authority to undertake surrogacy
or its related procedures.
• The Bill provides for various safeguards for surrogate mothers. One of them is
insurance coverage.
It also specifies that no sex selection can be done when it comes to surrogacy.
II.3. Baby Manji Yamada Vs. Union Of India And Anr

The Court held that the complaints relating to the misuse of surrogacy and it being an illegal
racket in India should be made before the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act,
2005. The Court also held that no complaint was made concerning Baby Manji

PRAYER
Therefore, if it may please this Hon`ble Court in the lights of Facts Presented, Issues Raised,
Arguments Advanced, and Authorities Citied, the Counsel for Appellant humbly prays before
this Hon`ble Court, to kindly adjudge and declare:
1) That the appeal is maintainable before the supreme court of perucia
2) That the surrogacy contract was valid between mr. And mrs. Chopra and ms. Khan under
the surrogacy(regulation) act, 2021.
And/or pass any other appropriate order as Court may deem fit and for this act of Kindness,
the Petitioner as in duty bound, shall forever pray.
Sd/
……………………….
Respectfully Submitted
Counsel of Appellant

Swami Vivekanand Subharti University, Meerut: Team Code: P-08

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Swami Vivekanand Subharti University, Meerut: Team Code: P-08

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN-HOUSE MOOT COURT COMPETETION,2023

Team Code: P-08

SWAMI VIVEKANAND SUBHARTI UNIVERSITY, MEERUT

SARDAR PATEL SUBHARTI INSTITUTE OF LAW

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF PERUCIA

SUBMITTED TO: MRS. AFREEN ALMAS SUBMITTED BY: RIYA AGARWAL

DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL APPEARING ON THE BEHALF OF

Memorandum on the behalf of Appellant Page 1

• LIST OF ABBREVIATION ………………………………..… .......…………………3

• INDEX OF AUTHORITIES …………………………………….…........……………4

• STATEMENT OF FACTS ………………………………….……………….....…..6-8

• ISSUES RAISED... …………………………………………………………...............9

• SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ……………………………………………... ……..10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 11-17

ISSUE1. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE SUPREME

ISSUE2. WHETHER THE SURROGACY CONTRACT WAS VALID BETWEEN MR.

Memorandum on the behalf of Appellant Page 2

AIR All India Reporter

Memorandum on the behalf of Appellant Page 3

Memorandum on the behalf of Appellant Page 4

Memorandum on the behalf of Appellant Page 6

Memorandum on the behalf of Appellant Page 7

Memorandum on the behalf of Appellant Page 8

ISSUE1. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE SUPREME

ISSUE2. WHETHER THE SURROGACY CONTRACT WAS VALID BETWEEN MR.

Memorandum on the behalf of Appellant Page 9

ISSUE1. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE SUPREME

ISSUE2. WHETHER THE SURROGACY CONTRACT WAS VALID BETWEEN MR.

Memorandum on the behalf of Appellant Page 10

Memorandum on the behalf of Appellant Page 11

I.1. Status of a Surrogate in Perucia

I.3. Procedure for the Adoption

Memorandum on the behalf of Appellant Page 13

ISSUE2. WHETHER THE SURROGACY CONTRACT WAS VALID BETWEEN MR.

Memorandum on the behalf of Appellant Page 15

II.1. Altruistic Surrogacy

II.2. Surrogacy ( Regulation) Bill 2021

II.3. Baby Manji Yamada Vs. Union Of India And Anr

Memorandum on the behalf of Appellant Page 16

Memorandum on the behalf of Appellant Page 17

1) That the appeal is maintainable before the supreme court of perucia

Memorandum on the behalf of Appellant Page 18

You might also like