Team SMCC 1 - Petitioner

TEAMCODE- SMCC 1
SREE NARAYANA LAW COLLEGE 3RD ALL INDIA MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF NYAYASTHAN
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE NYAYASTHAN, 1950
WRIT PETITION NO. ****/2023
CASE CONCERNED WITH CHALLENGING VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF

SURROGACY REGULATION ACT, 2021
SANDEEP AND ORS. ....................................................................... PETITIONERS
v.
UNION OF NYAYASTHAN .................................................... …. RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

COMPETITION 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................................... 5
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................... 7
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................ 16
STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................................................................. 17
ISSUES RAISED ............................................................................................................ 19
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ..................................................................................... 20
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ......................................................................................... 22
1. THE PETITION FILED BY RAJESH UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF NYAYASTHAN TO DISCLOSE AND PUBLISH THE
COPIES OF THE EDUCATIONAL CERTIFICATE AND OTHER DOCUMENTS
OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID ..... 22
1.1 The petition filed by Mr. Rajesh under Article 32 of the constitution is maintainable . 22
1.1.1 Alternative remedy is no bar for filing writ petition.............................................. 23
1.1.2 Infringement of fundamental rights. ..................................................................... 23
1.2 the petitioner has the right to seek the copies of the educational certificate and other
documents of the members of the board under the RTI act 2005 ................................ 24
1.2.1 the said documents come under the purview of public interest. ............................ 25
1.2.2 The educational qualifications does not come under the personal data under RTI Act
and thereby it does not violate any fundamental rights of the members of the board
............................................................................................................................ 26
1.3 The right to information is a fundamental right .......................................................... 27
2. THE SURROGACY REGULATION ACT 2021 WHICH DENIED THE
PERMISSION TO A WIDOWER TO HAVE A CHILD IS INVALID ................ 27
2.1 The Petition filed by Mr. Sandeep is maintainable ..................................................... 28
2.2 The Petitioner’s right to privacy under Art. 21 is violated .......................................... 28
2.2.1 Reproductive right is a basic human right and that has been violated in the instant case
............................................................................................................................ 29
2.3 There is a blatant violation of Art. 14 ........................................................................ 30
MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS 2

COMPETITION 2023
2.3.1 The Act is arbitrary with regard to the rights of widowers in option for surrogacy 30
2.3.2 The test of reasonable classification is not satisfied in the instant case ................ 30
3. SECTION 4(III)(c)(I) OF THE SURROGACY REGULATION ACT 2021 IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID ....................................................................... 32
3.1 The Petition filed by the Petitioner, Satish is maintainable under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Nyayasthan ....................................................................................... 32
3.1.1 Petitioner has the Locus Standi to file Writ Petition ............................................. 32
3.1.2 Infringement of Fundamental Rights .................................................................... 33
3.1.3 Alternative remedy is no bar to file Writ Petition ................................................. 33
3.2 The relevant provision of the Surrogacy Regulation Act 2021 is invalid which required the
intending couple to identify a willing woman ............................................................ 34
3.2.1 Petitioner seeking a direction to the Union of Nyayasthan to establish an independent
authority for the purpose of assisting intending couples/intending women in identifying
willing women for the purpose of surrogacy ........................................................ 34
3.3 The relevant provision regarding age limit for the intending couples is invalid .......... 35
3.3.1 The relevant provision of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act 2021 which laid down an
upper age limit for the intending couple at 55 and 50 is invalid ........................... 35
3.3.2 Failure of reasonableness test under Article 14 ................................................... 36
3.3.3 Violation in the rule of law because of Arbitrariness ............................................ 36
3.3.4 Violation of right to life, personal liberty, privacy and reproductive right under Article
21 ........................................................................................................................ 37
3.4 The provision of law which prohibited advertisement seeking surrogate mother is invalid
.................................................................................................................................. 39
4. SECTION 4(III)(b)(I) OF THE SURROGACY REGULATION ACT 2021 IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID ....................................................................... 39
4.1 Th petition filed by the Petitioner, Shanti is maintainable under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Nyayasthan ....................................................................................... 40
4.1.1 Petitioner has the Locus Standi to file Writ Petition ............................................. 40
4.1.2 Infringement of Fundamental Rights .................................................................... 42
4.1.3 Alternative remedy is no bar to file Writ Petition ................................................. 43
4.2 Section 4(III)(b)(I) of the Surrogacy Regulation Act violates fundamental Rights...... 43
4.2.1 The said provision violates Article 14 of the Constitution of Nyayasthan ............. 44
4.2.2 The said provision violates Article 15 of the Constitution of Nyayasthan ............. 44

COMPETITION 2023
4.2.3 Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of Nyayasthan ..................................... 45
PRAYER ........................................................................................................................ 47

COMPETITION 2023
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM
¶ Paragraph
& And
A.I.R. All India Reporter
Anr. Another
Bom Bombay
Ed. Edition
HC High Court
SC Supreme Court
ILR Indian Law Reporter
No. Number
Ors. Others
Sec. Section
S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases
Supp. Supplementary
S.C.R. Supreme Court Reporter
v. Versus
Vol. Volume
u/s Under Section

COMPETITION 2023
i.e., That is
Govt. Government
I.LR Indian Law Review
U.O. I Union of India
P&H Punjab and Haryana
Pg Page
Crim.LR Criminal Law Reporter
ART Assisted Reproductive Technology
PIO Public Information Officer
RTI Right To Information

COMPETITION 2023
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
A. CASES
Indian Cases
A.
1) Aeltemesh rein,Advocate,Supreme Court of India v.U.O.I.,AIR 1988 SC 1768.

2) A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1950 SC 27
3) Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 2002 SC 1553
4) Amit Kumar Dwivedi and ors v. State of U.P and ors, service, A.I.R. 2020 SC 345
5) All India Tea Trading Co. v. S.D.O, A.I.R 1962 Ass 20 (India)
6) Arun Muthuvel versus Union of India & Ors, WP (Civil) No. 756 of 2022)
7) Amrita v. Union of India, (2005) 13 S.C.C. 721;
8) Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 1 S.C.C.722.
9) A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1955 SC 27
10) Ashok v. Collector, A.I.R. 1980 SC 112: (1980) 1 SCR 491 (1980) 1 SCC 180
11) A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani,
A.I.R. 1961 SC 1506
12) Arnab Manorajan Goswami v. The State of Maharashtra, Crl. Appl. 742/2020
13) Allegeyer v. Louisiana; (1897) 165 US 578
14) Ammini E.D. v. Union of India; A.I.R. 1995 Ker 252.
15) Aeltemesh rein,Advocate,Supreme Court of India v.U.O.I.,AIR 1988 SC 1768
16) Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 1 (India).
17) Avinash Chand Gupta v. State of U.PBaby Manaji v.Union of India,(2008) 13 SCC 518.
B.
18) .Bakoro & Ramgni Ltd. v.State of Bihar,1963 SC 516;
19) Bangalore Development Authority v.Air Craft Employees Co-operation Society,AIR 2002
SCC 246
20) Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. UOI, A.I.R. 1984 SC 802: (1984) 3 SCC 161: (1984) 2 SCR 67,

COMPETITION 2023
21) Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India AIR 1973 SC 106
22) Bishan Das v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1961 SC 1570
23) Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1325.
24) Budhan Choudhary v State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 191 (India)
25) Bhagwandas v. UOI A.I.R. 1956 SC 175;
26) B.K Parthasarathi v Govt of A.P AIR 2000 AP 156
27) Bodhisatwa v.Subhra Chakraborthy, A.I.R. 1996 SC 922: (1996) 1 SCC 490.
C.
28) Central Bank Retires Association v. Union of India, (2006) 1 SCC 497
29) Chameli Singh v. State of U.P.; A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1051(India)
30) Chiranjit Lal Chowdhary v. UOI, A.I.R. 1951 SC 41: (1950) SCR 869
31) Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India. (1950) SCR 869: A.I.R. 1951 SC 41
32) Committee &Anr, 1998 (75) DLT836; Shahabudhin v. State of Bihar, 2010 (4) SCC 653;
33) Confederation of All Nagaland State Services Employees Association v. State of Nagaland,
(2006) 1 SCC 496
D.
34) Danial Latifi v. Union of India; (2001) 7 S.C.C. 740; Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal
Corpn; (1985) 3 S.C.C. 545; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India; (1978) 1 S.C.C. 248(India)
35) Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Ors v. Bachan Singh, 2010(5) ALT 4
36) Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1962 SCR (1) 574.
37) Daryao v. State of UP, A.I.R. 1961 SC 1457 (1962) 1 SCR 574
38) Deep Chand v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1959 SC 648 (India)).
E.
39) E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 555.
40) Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. v. UOI, A.I.R. 1986 SC 872: (1986) 1 SCC 133
F.
41) Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union v. UOI, (1981) 1 SCC 568 A.I.R. 1981 SC 344
42) Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi;(1981) 1 S.C.C. 608;
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India; (1978) 1 S.C.C. 248(India)

COMPETITION 2023
43) Francis Coralie Mulin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 557
(India)
G.
44) Gobind v. State of M.P,AIR 1975 SC 1378.See Also; Kharak Singh v. State of U.P,AIR
1963 SC 1295.
45) Golak Nath v. UOI, (1967) 2 SCR 762 (India)
46) Govt. Of A. P v. Maharshi Publishers Pvt.Ltd(2003) 1 S.C.C. 95.98- 99,
H.
47) Hans muller v.Supdt.Presidency Jail,AIR 1955 SC 367
48) HarbansalSahnia V. Indian oil Corporation Ltd. AIR 2003 SC 2120
49) Hema Vijay Menon v. State of Maharashtra,(2015) 5 AIR Bom R 370.
50) High Court of Judicature of Bombay v. Shirish Kumar, (1997) 6 SCC 339 A.I.R. 1961 SC
1457 : (1962) 1SCR 574.
I.
51) Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. V. India (1985) 1 SCC 641)
52) Indian legal and Economic forum v. U.O.I (1997) 10 SCC 728.
53) Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 2299
54) Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477.
55) International Airport Authority v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi,(1979) 3 SCC 489.
56) I.R. Coelho (Dead) By Lrs vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 11 January, 2007
57) I.R Colho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1998) 7 SCC 550.
J.
58) Justice K.S. Puttuswamy (Retd) v. Union of India and Ors; (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1
59) Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India, WP (Civil) No. 494 of 2012 (India)
60) Jyothi Pershad v The administrator for the Union Territory of Delhi AIR 1961 SC 1602
K.
61) Kanubhai Brahmbatt v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1987 SC 1159 (1989) Supp-2 SCC 310.
62) Karan Balraj Mehta and Anr v. Union of India, (Civil) No. 8848 of 2022
63) Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab; A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 456(India)
64) Kathi Raning Rawat v.State of Saurashtra,AIR 1952 SC 123.
65) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225;
66) Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.; A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1295

COMPETITION 2023
67) K.K. Kochunni v. State of Madras AIR 1959 SC 725
68) Kuldip Nayar v. UOI AIR 2006 SC 312
L.
69) Laxmanappa v. UOI, A.I.R. 1955 SC 3: (1955) 1 SCR 769
70) L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others, A.I.R 1997 3 S.C.C 261 (India)
71) Louise Fernandez v. Union of India. (1988) I SCC 201
M.
72) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India; A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597(India)
73) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 S.C.C 248
74) Mahendra v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1963 SC 1019 (India).
75) M Nagaraj v. UOI, A.I.R. 2007 SC 71: (2006) 8 SCC. 212 (India)
76) Mohd. Zahir Khan v. UOI, 1993 (Supp-2) SCC 12(1986) 1 SCC 133;
77) Moumita Padar v.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, AIR 2007 SC 424.
78) Muneeb-ul-Rehman v. Govt. of J & K, (1984) 4 SCC 24: A.I.R. 1984 SC 1585
N.
79) Nandini K & Anr. versus Union of India represented by its Secretary & Ors, WP (Civil),
Delhi High Court, 2022
80) Neelima Mishra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal & Ors,AIR 1990 SC 1402.
O.
81) Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., 1986 A.I.R. 1980:1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51.
82) Om Prakash v. Ram Kumar, A.I.R. 1991 SC 409: (1991) 1 SCC 441.
P.
83) People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India 2003(001) SCW 2353 SC
84) P.N. Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1987) 4 SCC 609
85) Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P AIR 1963 SC 996
R.
86) Rabindra Nath Bose and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1970 SC 470.
87) Raja Jagdambika Pratap Narain Singh v. Central Board of Direct Taxes, A.I.R. 1975SC
1816 (1976) 1 SCR 49: (1975) 4 SCC 578
88) Rajinder Kaur v. Union of India, AIR 2004 P&H 347;
89) Rajendra Kumar Mohatta v. New Delhi Municpal
90) Ram Krishna Dalmia v.Justice S.R.Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538
91) R.D. Shetty v. International A.I.R.port Authority, A.I.R. 1979 SC 1628:

COMPETITION 2023
92) R.V. Customs and Excise Commissioner ex parte Cooke and Stevenson, 1 AII ER 1068
(1970, Queen Bench Division, Divisional Court)
93) R v. Diary Produce Quota Tribunal (1990) 2 AII ER 434 : (1990) 2 WLR 1302
94) Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 124 (India).
95) Ruqmani v. Achuthan, A.I.R .1991 S.C. 983 (India).
S.
96) Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1965 A.I.R. 845, 1965 SCR (1) 933, (India))
97) S.A. Kini v. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 893 : (1985) 3 SCR 754 : 1985 Supp. SCC 122(¶
4)
98) Saraswati Industrial Syndicate v. Union of India, A.I.R 1975 SC 460 (India)
99) Sarbananda Sonowal v.U.O.I.,AIR 2005 SC 2920
100) Satish Chandra v. Union of India, AIR 1953 SC 250
101) Shantabhai v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 532 (India).
102) Sharma Transport v. Government of A.P, MANU/SC/0759/2001,
103) Shayara Bano v. Union of India [(2017) 9 SCC 1]
104) Shrilekha Vidyarthi v.State of U.P,AIR 1991 SC 537.
105) Shri Kishan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1995(2) S.C.R. 531;
106) Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 Supp. SCC 1.
107) SP Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149
108) Soma Chakrovarty v. State, (2007) 5 S.C.C 403,411, ¶
109) Soma Raj v. State of Haryana 1990 A.I.R. 1176.
110) Somawanti v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1963 SC 151 (165): (1963) 2 SCR 774;
111) S.M. Rao v. Dy. Commr and Dy. Magistrate, Banglore, A.I.R .2004 NOC.
112) S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, A.I.R 1982 S.C. 149 (India)
113) S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 387 (India)
114) S. Pratap Singh V. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72
115) S.R Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 2.
116) Sripur Paper Mills v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, A.I.R. 1970 SC 1520
117) Sri Shankari Prasad Singh v. UOI, (A.I.R. 1951 SC 455 (India))
118) State of A.P. v. Abdul Khuddus, (2007) 15 S.C.C 261 (India).
119) State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh [AIR 1952 SC 252]
120) State of Bombay V. United motors Ltd. AIR 1953 SC 252
121) State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Others, (2005) 8 SCC 534
122) State of Kerala v. Markose, A.I.R 1962 Ker 78 (India)

COMPETITION 2023
123) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shobharam and Ors, W.P No. 243/ 1954 (1966)
124) State of Madras v. V.G. Row, A.I.R. 1952 S.C .196 (India).
125) State of Mysore v. V.K. Kangan, A.I.R. 1975 SC 2190 (1976) 1 SCR 369: (1976) 2
SCC 895
126) State of U.P V. Maqbool Ahmad, (2006) 7 S.C.C.521,525, ¶13;
127) State of U.P V. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 865
128) State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 75 (India)
129) Stephen’s college v. University of Delhi 1991 A.I.R. S.C. 1630.
130) Style(dress hand) v. UT,Chandigarh,(1999)7SCC89
131) Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn. (2009) 9 SCC 1.
132) Sudershan Chopra v. Punjab State Human Rights Commission and Ors, CWP 21104
OF 2020(India)
133) Sunil Kumar Rai v. The State of Bihar W.P. (CIVIL) No. 1052 of 2021 (India).
134) Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association and Anr v. Union of India, writ
Petition (civil) 1303 of 1987 (India)
135) Surendra Narula v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi CRL.M.C. No.26/2016
T.
136) Tata Iron and Steel Co. v. Sarkar, AIR 1961 SC 65.
137) The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors, 1981 A.I.R. 746.
138) T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 S.C.C. 481,655, ¶ 345;
U.
139) Ujjan Bai v. State of UP, A.I.R. 1962 SC 1621 (1963) 1 SCR 778
140) U.O.I. v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416
V.
141) Vishaka and Ors v. the State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 3011 (India)
W.
142) Waman Rao v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 362.
Y.
143) Yadhav v. Banaras Hindu University, A.I.R. 1996 All 300.
Foreign Cases
144) Mennesson v. France and Labassee v. France, 26th June 2014
145) D. and Ors v. Belgium (Case no. 29176/13)

COMPETITION 2023
146) Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy, 24th January 2017
147) C and E v. France ( Case no. 1462/18 )
148) D v. France (case no. 11288/18)
B. STATUTES
1) THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, 1950

2) THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
3) CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDUE, 1973
4) SURROGACY (REGULATION) ACT 2021
5) THE ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY (REGIULATION) ACT 2021
6) THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005
C. INTERNWTIONAL STATUTES
1) INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS (ICCPR)

2) UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (UDHR)
D. ARTICLES AND REPORTS

1) PERSONAL INFORMATION OF PUBLIC SERVANT AND RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3351-personal-
information-of-public-servant-and-right-to-information
2) SURROGACY REGULATIONS IN INDIA,

https://www.mondaq.com/india/constitutional-administrative-law/1126150/surrogacy-
regulations-in-india
3) SURROGACY LAWS IN INDIA ,

https://blog.ipleaders.in/surrogacy-laws-india/
4) SURROGACY BILL TO BENEFIT WIDOWS AND DIVORCEES

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/surrogacy-bill-to-benefit-widows-divorcees-
too/articleshow/

COMPETITION 2023
5) SURROGACY BIOMARKETS IN INDIA: TROUBLING STORIES FROM BEFORE

THE 2021 ACT
https://www.theindiaforum.in/article/surrogacy-biomarkets-india-troubling-stories-2021-
act
6) RTI ACT AND CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: AN ANALYSIS

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-5023-rti-act-and-constitution-of-india-an-
analysis.html
7) RIGHT TO INFORMATION IN CONSONANCE WITH RIGHT TO PRIVACY

https://cic.gov.in/sites/default/files/Internship
8) Subhodh Asthana, Article 15 of the Constitution, Prohibition of discrimination and

unreasonable differentiation, http://www.blogipleaders.in
9) BOOKS
1. Mahendra Pal Singh, M.N. Shukla’s Constitution of India, EBC Publication,13th

edition,2017
2. Dr Mrs. Mamta Rao, Constitutional law, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 4 th Ed., 2013
3. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 33rd edition, LexisNexis, 2010
4. M P Jain, M P JAIN Indian Constitutional law, Lexis Nexis, 8th Ed. 2010
5. P M Bakshi, The Constitution of India, Allahabad Law Agency, 3rd edition,2007
6. D.D. Basu, D.D. Basu’s Commentary on ‘the Constitution of India’, vol 1,2,3,7, Lexis
Nexis, 8th ed. 2009.
7. H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, vol.1, Universal Book Traders, vol
3,4thed.2002.
8. V.N. Shukla’s, Constitution of India, 11th ed. Eastern Book Company
9. T.K. Tope’s, Constitutional Law of India, 3rd ed, Eastern Book Company
10. Rekha Pahuja, Surrogacy Law Practice and policy in India, 2021
11. N. V Paranjape, right to information Law in Inida, Lexis Nexis, 2014

COMPETITION 2023
12. LEXICONS
1. Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, (9th Ed. 2010)

2. RamanathaIyer, Advanced Law Lexicon, 2391(3rd Ed.2005)
3. The Oxford Dictionary, 2nd Ed.p.433)
4. Collina Cobuild English Language Dictionary
13. DATABASES AND WEBSITES
1. http://www.latestlaws.com
2. http:// www.legalserviceindia.com
3. http://www.westlawindia.com
4. http://www.vakilno1.com
5. http://www.manupatra.com
6. http://www.heionline.com
7. http://www.S.C.C.online.com
8. http://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal
9. http://www.allaw.com
10. http://www.lexology.com
11. http://www.lawfirms.com
12. http://www.scribd.com
13. http://www.indiankoon.org

COMPETITION 2023
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE PETITIONERS HAVE THE HONOUR TO SUBMIT BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF NYAYASTHAN, THE MEMORANDUM FOR THE
PETITIONERS UNDER ARTICLE 32 (WRIT PETITION) OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF NYAYASTHAN, 19501.
The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present
case in the jurisdiction of the Petitioners
1
Art 32, Constitution of Nyayasthan- Writ Petition before the Supreme Court.
Article 32: Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part (Part III)
(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 maybe 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).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this
constitution.

COMPETITION 2023
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The petitioners, Rajesh, Sandeep ,Sathish, and Shanthi filed petitions involving questions
relating to the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Surrogacy(Regulation) Act,
2021. The Supreme Court of Nyayasthan decided to hear all the petitions together on the
question of admissibility as well as merits.
Nyaysthan is a country having a constitution as well as legal system identical to that of India.
The geography of Nyayasthan is also similar to that of India. Nyaysthan is a member of the
United Nation and it has ratified all the International treaties which has been ratified by India.
ORIGIN OF THE SURROGACY REGULATION ACT 2021
Since the year 2000, Nyasthan emerged as a surrogacy hub for couples from different countries.
There were reported incidents of unethical practices exploitation of surrogate mothers
abandonment of children born out of surrogacy and import of human embroys and gamets.
With a a view to regulate surrogacy services in Nyaysthan and also to prohibit the potential
exploitation of of surrogate mothers and to protect the right of the children born through
surrogacy the Parliament of Nyaysthan passed the Surrogacy Regulation Act 2021.
GROUNDS THAT LED TO FILING OF WRIT PETITION
The Central Government constituted the national Assisted Reproductive Technology and
Surrogacy Board. After the board was constituted , there were widespread allegations that many
of the expert members of the board were persons who were not adequetly qualified to be the
mebers of the board. Mr. Rajesh filed an application to the Public Information Officer (PIO)
under the Right to Information Act (RTI) Act 2005 seeking copies of the educational certificate
and other documents considered by the Central government while nominating the members of
the board. However, that was rejected by the PIO. Aggrieved by this Mr. Rajesh filed a writ
petition under Article 32 of the constitution seeking a direction to competent authorities to
disclose the information sought by him. Rajesh also prayed for a direction to the Board to
proactively disclose and publish the copy of the educational certificates of the expert members
in the website of the Board.
Sandeep and Arya were ready to have a child soon. But the fate was different. Arya succumbed
to an accident. After the tragic incident Sandeep decided to live alone. However, he couldn’t

COMPETITION 2023
help but be consumed by the thought of becoming a father. With the intention to become a
parent through surrogacy, Sandeep approached Excel Surrogacy on 25th March 2022. However,
he was informed that it was not legally possible for him to have a child through surrogacy since
the newly enacted Surrogacy (regulation) Act 2021, did not permit a widower to have a child
through surrogacy. Sandeep consulted a lawyer in the matter who advised him to challenge
the constitutional validity of the provision which denied the permission to the widower to have
a child through surrogacy. Hence, Sandeep filed a petition before this Honourable Court
challenging the validity of certain provisions.
Sathis and Sruthi who grew up in an orphanage tied knot on 1st February 2005. Despite waiting
for several years they could not fulfill the dream of having their own children. With an intention
to become parents through surrogacy they approached fulfill surrogacy clinic in Karol City.
However, they were informed that they will have to identify a willing women to act as a
surrogate mother. They decided to publish an advertisement as they didn’t have relatives to
help them. Finally they got a willing women named Shanthi.
Shanthi, who is 30, was involved in a living relationship with a man. Her first husband
succumbed to an accident. However, despite giving the consent, it was informed that Shanthi
could not become a surrogate mother as she did not satisfy the conditions specified in section
4 (iii)(b)(I) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act 2021. Sathish and Sruthi also could not adopt
surrogacy as they crossed 55 and 50 years respectively.
Sathish and Sruthi decide to challenge the provisions which required the intending couple to
identify a willing women and also challenged the constitutional validity of relevant provisions
which prescribed the age limits of intending couple. In the petition he sought a direction to the
Union of India to establish an independent authority for the purpose of assisting intending
couples/ intending women in identifying willing women for the purpose of surrogacy.
By way of separate petition, Shanthi challenged the constitutional validity of the provision
which restricted the option of becoming the surrogate mother to only ever married women aged
between 25 and 35 years having a child of her own.
The Supreme Court of Nyayasthan decided to hear all the petitions togather on the question of
admissibility as well as merits.

COMPETITION 2023
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE 1
Whether the petition filed by Rajesh under Article 32 of the Constitution of

Nyayasthan to disclose and publish the copies of educational certificate and other
documents of the members of the board is valid?
ISSUE 2
Whether the Surrogacy Regulation Act 2021 which denied permission to a widower to
have a child is invalid?
ISSUE 3
Whether section 4(III)(c)(I) of the Surrogacy Regulation Act 2021 is constitutionally

valid?
ISSUE 4
Whether section 4(III)(b)(I) of the Surrogacy Regulation Act 2021 is constitutionally

valid?

COMPETITION 2023
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

COPIES OF THE EDUCATIONAL CERTIFICATE AND OTHER DOCUMENTS
OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID.
It is humbly submitted before the Honourable court that the petition filed by Rajesh under
Article 32 of the constitution of Nyayasthan to disclose and publish the copies of the
educational certificate and other documents of the members of the board is constitutionally
valid. The petitioners asserts that The petition filed by Mr. Rajesh under Article 32 of the
constitution is maintainable, the petitioner has the right to seek the copies of the educational
certificate and other documents of the members of the board under the RTI act 2005, Right to
information is a fundamental right.
2. THE SURROGACY REGULATION ACT 2021 WHICH DENIED THE

PERMISSION TO A WIDOWER TO HAVE A CHILD IS INVALID.
The decision to create a new human being, as a member of one’s family is regarded as
quintessential an aspect of personal liberty. The right to reproduce and to procreate has evolved
due to the technological advances of using IVF to procreate through surrogacy with the help of
surrogate mother. It is well settled that the Surrogacy Regulation Act of 2021 remains silent as
to the rights of unmarried couples and single parents from commissioning surrogacy. Therefore
it is humbly submitted that the blanket ban imposed on the Petitioner’s right to have a child
through surrogacy is invalid. The petitioners asserts that, the petition filed by Mr.Sandeep is
maintainable, The Petitioner’s right to privacy under Art.21 is violated and There is a blatant
violation of Art.14.

COMPETITION 2023
3. SECTION 4(III)(c)(I) OF THE SURROGACY REGULATION ACT 2021 IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID.
The Counsel for the Petitioner side humbly contends that the couple, Satish and Sruthi opted
for surrogacy, and seek the help of Shanti, but they did not comply with the conditions laid
down in the provisions in Surrogacy Regulation Act, 2021. By way of a separate petition,
Shanti, as per the instruction of Satish and Sruthi, challenged the constitutional validity of the
provision which restricted the option of becoming surrogate mother to only ever married
women aged between 25 and 35 years having a child of her own. It is asserted that The Petition
filed by the Petitioner, Satish is maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of
Nyayasthan, the relevant provision of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 is invalid which
required the intending couple to identify a willing woman, the relevant provisions regarding
age limit for the intending couples is invalid and The provision of law which prohibited
advertisement seeking surrogate mothers is invalid.

CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID
The Counsel for the Petitioner side humbly contends that the couple, Satish and Sruthi opted
for surrogacy, and seek the help of Shanti, but they did not comply with the conditions laid
down in the provisions in Surrogacy Regulation Act, 2021. By way of a separate petition,
Shanti, as per the instruction of Satish and Sruthi, challenged the constitutional validity of the
provision which restricted the option of becoming surrogate mother to only ever married
women aged between 25 and 35 years having a child of her own. It is contended that The
Petition filed by the Petitioner, Shanti is maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of
Nyayasthan and Section 4(III) (b)(I) of the Surrogacy Regulation Act 2021 violates
Fundamental Rights

COMPETITION 2023
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

COPIES OF THE EDUCATIONAL CERTIFICATE AND OTHER
DOCUMENTS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID.
“It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question the authority”
-Benjamin Franklin.
1) It is humbly submitted before the Honourable court that the petition filed by Rajesh under
Article 32 of the constitution of Nyayasthan to disclose and publish the copies of the
educational certificate and other documents of the members of the board is constitutionally
valid. The petitioners asserts that (1.1) The petition filed by Mr. Rajesh under Article 32 of
the constitution is maintainable (1.2) the petitioner has the right to seek the copies of the
educational certificate and other documents of the members of the board under the RTI act
2005 (1.3) Right to information is a fundamental right.
1.1 THE PETITION FILED BY MR. RAJESH UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF NYASTHAN IS MAINTAINABLE
2) It is humbly submitted before this Honorable court that the petition filed under Article 32
of the constitution of Nyayasthan is maintainable. In the instant case the petitioner has
approached the Supreme Court invoking Article 32 of the constitution of Nyayasthan. The
petitioners asserts that (1.1.1) Alternative remedy is no bar for filing writ petition (1.1.2)
Infringement of fundamental right is sufficient to file the writ petition.
1.1.1 Alternative remedy is no bar for filing writ petition

3) Here, the petitioner need not establish either that he has no other adequate remedy or that
he has exhausted all other remedies provided by law, as Art. 32 is a Fundamental Right in

COMPETITION 2023
itself and therefore existence of an alternate remedy is no bar to the Supreme Court
entertaining a petition under it2.
4) Where there is a well-founded allegation that fundamental right has been infringed
alternative remedy is no remedy for filing a writ petition and granting relief3. The court
may exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least petitions where the petitioner seeks enforcement
of any of the fundamental rights4. In the instant case since there is an infringement of
fundamental rights alternative remedy is no bar to file a writ petition.
1.1.2 Infringement of fundamental rights.
7) Article 32 of the Constitution of Nyayasthan is meant to ensure observance of the rule of
law and prevent abuse or misuse of power. It is designed to ensure that each and every
authority in the State, including the Government, acts bona-fide and within the limits of its
powers and that when a court is satisfied that there is an abuse or misuse of power, it is
incumbent on the court to afford justice to the individual5. In the case of Bennett Coleman
and Co. v. Union of India6, the right to information was held to be included within the
right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19 (1) (a)7.
8) In the instant case there is an infringement of fundamental rights of the petitioner. It is the
fundamental right of Mr. Rajesh to know the educational qualification of the members of
the board. Here, the application filed by Mr. Rajesh under the Right to Information Act
2005 seeking the copies of educational certificates and other documents considered by the
Central government while nominating the expert members of the board was rejected by the
Public Information Officer. Hence the fundamental right of right to information has been
violated and therefore the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the constitution of Nyasthan
is maintainable authority to ask.
1.2 THE PETITIONER HAS THE RIGHT TO SEEK THE COPIES OF THE
EDUCATIONAL CERTIFICATE AND OTHER DOCUMENTS OF THE
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD UNDER THE RTI ACT 2005
9) It is humbly submitted before the Honourable Court that the petitioner has the right to
seek the copies of the educational certificate and other documents of the members of the
2
Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1962 SCR (1) 574.
3
State of Bombay v. United motors Ltd. AIR 1953 SC 252
4
HarbansalSahnia v. Indian oil Corporation Ltd. AIR 2003 SC 2120
5
S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72
6
Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India AIR 1973 SC 106
7
Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P AIR 1963 SC 996

COMPETITION 2023
board under the RTI Act 2005. The petitioners assert that (1.2.1) the documents asked by
Mr. Rajesh comes under the purview of public interest. (1.2.2) the petitioner has the for
the said documents.
1.2.1 the said documents come under the purview of public interest.
10) Section 8 lays down certain qualified exemptions, which are subject to the Public Interest
Test. Here, the public authority in possession of the information, must consider whether
there is greater public interest in disclosing the information or withholding the information
(popularly called- balancing the public interest or herein referred to as the Public Interest
Test). Surprisingly, the RTI 2005 fails to mention anywhere the definition of a 'public
authority'. This term is not found defined in any freedom of information law of the world.8
11) Section 3 of the Right to Information Act provides that subject to provision of this Act
citizens shall have the right to information. In the instant case, Mr. Rajesh filed an
application to the Public Information Officer seeking the copies of educational certificates
and other documents considered by the central government while nominating the members
of the board. The RTI application was rejected by the Public Information Officer on the
ground that the information sought was personal in nature and hence need not be disclosed
under the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005 says that (j) information which
relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not relationship to any public
activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the
individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information
Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public
interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information, which
cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.9
12) In the case of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi 10 wherein
in the context of exemption under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Court had held
that exemption provided under Section 8 of the Act is the rule and only in exceptional
circumstances of larger public interest the information would be disclosed. The expression
"public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning
to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its
strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms
8
Srinivas Madhav, "The Right to Information and Public Interest - A Primer", RTI Manual, March 2007
9
Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to information Act
10
of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61

COMPETITION 2023
of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose",
is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes
its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of
society and its needs11.It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants
recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake 12 . In the
case of State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Others, 13 the Apex
Court held that public interest holds and possess wide importance and it’s an umbrella term
which comprises public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of
the community, and the principles of Directive Principles of State Policy which are
mentioned in Part IV of Nyayasthan Constitution. Generally, public interest includes,
“disclosure of certain information which leads to greater transparency and prosperity of the
nation”. Withholding that information can affect the interests of the public at large
13) In the instant case, the Central government constituted the national Assisted Reproductive
Technology and Surrogacy Board as required by the Section 17 of Surrogacy Regulation
Act 2021. After the board was constituted there were widespread allegations that many of
the expert members were persons who are not adequately qualified to be the members of
the board. Here, it is the right of the public to know whether the members are qualified or
not. Therefore, the said documents comes under the ambit of the term public interest and
hence they constitute an exception under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005.
1.2.2 The educational qualifications does not come under the personal data under RTI Act
and thereby it does not violate any fundamental rights of the members of the board
14) Section 3 of the Right to Information Act provides that subject to provision of this Act
citizens shall have the right to information. Section 3 of the RTI Act 2005 states that —
Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to
information14.Personal Information is not defined anywhere under the Right to Information
Act. However, personal information is defined in Section 2(i) of Information Technology
Rules, 2011. It defines the term personal information as,
15) Any information related to a natural person directly or indirectly related in combination
with other information available with a body corporate is capable of identifying such a
person15.
11
(State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh [AIR 1952 SC 252] )
12
Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)
13
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Others, (2005) 8 SCC 534
14
Section 3 of the RTI Act.
15
Section 2(i) of IT Act 2005.

COMPETITION 2023
16) In the case of Surendra Narula v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi16, the Central Information
Commission observed that the educational qualifications cannot be considered as personal
in nature since it is based on the qualifications that the principal has been selected for his
post. In the instant case there were allegations that many of the expert members of the board
were persons who were not qualified to be the members of the board. Mr. Rajesh, Secretary
of the Organization named Foundation for ethical Surrogacy filed an application to the
Public Information Officer seeking the copies of educational certificates and other
documents considered by the central government while nominating the members of the
board.
1.3 THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
17) The right to information is a fundamental right flowing from Art. 19(1) (a) of the
Constitution is now a well-settled proposition. Over the years, the Supreme Court has
consistently ruled in favour of the citizen’s right to know. The landmark case in freedom
of the press in Nyayasthan was Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India17, the right to
information was held to be included within the right to freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed by Art. 19 (1) (a). In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain18, the Court explicitly stated
that it is not in the interest of the public to ‘cover with a veil of secrecy the common routine
business - the responsibility of officials to explain and to justify their acts is the chief
safeguard against oppression and corruption.’ In SP Gupta v. Union of India19, the right
of the people to know about every public act, and the details of every public transaction
undertaken by public functionaries was described. In People’s Union for Civil Liberties v.
Union of India20 the court held that exposure to public scrutiny is one of the known means
for getting clean and less polluted persons to govern the country. This principle was even
more clearly enunciated in a later case in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd.
V. India21 where the court remarked, “The basic purpose of freedom of speech and
expression is that all members should be able to form their beliefs and communicate them
freely to others. In sum, the fundamental principle involved here is the people’s right to
know.” In State of U.P V. Raj Narain22. The Court said, “While there are overwhelming
16
Surendra Narula v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi CRL.M.C. No.26/2016
17
Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India AIR 1973 SC 106
18
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 2299
19
SP Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149
20
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India 2003(001) SCW 2353 SC
21
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. V. India (1985) 1 SCC 641)
22
State of U.P V. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 865

COMPETITION 2023
arguments for giving to the executive the power to determine what matters may prejudice
public security, those arguments give no sanction to giving the executive exclusive power
to determine what matters may prejudice the public interest. Once considerations of
national security are left out there are few matters of public interest which cannot be safely
discussed in public”. In Kuldip Nayar v. UOI23 Secrecy becomes a source of corruption -
Sunlight and transparency have the capacity to remove it. Hence we can conclude that the
right to information is a fundamental right and also it is a powerful weapon to prevent
corruption. In the instant case, the petitioner Mr. Rajesh has been denied of his right to
information which is his fundamental right.
2 THE SURROGACY REGULATION ACT 2021 WHICH DENIED THE

PERMISSION TO A WIDOWER TO HAVE A CHILD IS INVALID.
“The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.”
-John F. Kennedy
18) The decision to create a new human being, as a member of one’s family is regarded as
quintessential an aspect of personal liberty.24 The right to reproduce and to procreate has
evolved due to the technological advances of using IVF to procreate through surrogacy
with the help of surrogate mother.25It is well settled that the Surrogacy Regulation Act of
2021 remains silent as to the rights of unmarried couples and single parents from
commissioning surrogacy. Therefore it is humbly submitted that the blanket ban imposed
on the Petitioner’s right to have a child through surrogacy is invalid. The petitioners asserts
that (2.1.)the petition filed by Mr.Sandeep is maintainable (2.2) The Petitioner’s right to
privacy under Art.21 is violated and secondly, (2.3) There is a blatant violation of Art.14.
2.1 THE PETITION FILED BY MR. SANDEEP IS MAINTAINABLE
19) Speaking on the question as to the maintainability of Sandeep in the instant matter, it is
humbly submitted before this Honourable Court that the Supreme Court is constituted as
the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights and is thus under an obligation to grant
relief where the existence of a fundamental right and its breach, actual or threatened, is
23
Kuldip Nayar v. UOI AIR 2006 SC 3127
24
Baby Manaji v.Union of India,(2008) 13 SCC 518.
25
Mazor, Emotional Reactions to Infertility, Infertility, 1984, pp. 27-29.

COMPETITION 2023
prima facie established.26 Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the actual infringement of
fundamental right need not be proved; a petition would lie, even if there is an imminent
danger of the infraction of fundamental right.27 Additionally availability of alternate
remedy is in no way bar to entertain the writ petition as the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Harbansal Sahnia V. Indian oil Corporation Ltd28 made it pertinent that in spite of
availability of the alternative remedy, the court may exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least
petitions where the petitioner seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights. Hence it
is humbly submitted that the petitioner has sufficient locus standi to file the writ petition
since there is a violation of fundamental right and thus, it is maintainable under Art.32 of
the Constitution of Nyaysthan.
2.2 THE PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY UNDER ART.21 IS VIOLATED
20) It is humbly submitted before this Honourable Court that the petitioner’s right under Article
21 is violated. The petitioner asserts that (2.2.1) the procedure established by law is
arbitrary (2.2.2) reproductive right is a basic human right and that has been violated in the
instant case.
2.2.1 the procedure established by law is arbitrary
21) No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law and such procedure shall be reasonable, fair and just 29. The Supreme
Court has asserted in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab30 that the procedure contemplated
by Art 21 is that it must be “right, just and fair” and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. In
order that the procedure be right, just and fair, it must confirm to natural justice.
Accordingly, it requires, firstly, existence of an enacted law authorizing interference with
the life of personal liberty, secondly, the law should be valid, and thirdly the procedure laid
down by the law must be followed31 . State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shobharam and Ors32
the Court held that no authority in India (Legislative, executive, judicial) can deprive a
26
Tata Iron and Steel Co. v. Sarkar, AIR 1961 SC 65.
27
Hans muller v.Supdt.Presidency Jail,AIR 1955 SC 367.See Also;Bakoro & Ramgni Ltd. v.State of Bihar,1963
SC 516; Sarbananda Sonowal v.U.O.I.,AIR 2005 SC 2920.
28
AIR 2003 SC 2120
29
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1979) 1 S.C.C. 248.; See also, Francis Coralie Mullin v. The
Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors, 1981 A.I.R. 746.
30
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 S.C.C. 569.
31
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1950 SC 27; Bishan Das v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1961 SC 1570;
Kartar Singh v. State of U.P. A.I.R. 1963 SC 1205.
32
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shobharam and Ors, W.P No. 243/ 1954 (1966)

COMPETITION 2023
person of his life or personal liberty unless it can justify its action under a procedure
established by law.
22) In the instant case, differential treatment has been made for a widow and widower which
is a clear cut violation of fundamental rights. Therefore in the instant case, the procedure
established by law is arbitrary and hence is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of
Nyaysthan.
2.2.2 Reproductive right is a basic human right and that has been violated in the instant
case.
23) It is an established principle in law that the reproductive right of all persons is a basic human
right. In B.K. Parthasarathi v. Govt. of A.P.33, the Court upheld “the right of reproductive
autonomy” of an individual as a facet of his “right to privacy” whilst agreeing with the
decision of the US Supreme Court in Skinner v. State of Oklahoma34, which characterised
the right to reproduce as one of the basic civil rights of man. Thus, the right to privacy of
every person to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters
fundamentally affecting a decision to bear or beget a child through surrogacy cannot be
taken away. 35 The notions of right to privacy and the right to choose have expanded
dramatically since the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd) & Anr v Union of India & Ors36. It is a well settled
position in law that the right to privacy has been identified as a constitutionally protected
right, being a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution.37 Moreover the right to life under
Article 21 includes a wide range of rights being the right to abortion, the right to
contraception and the right to have children. 38 How an individual decides to use this right
cannot, be intruded upon by the Government unless there is interference with another
individual’s right.39Moreover reproductive choices are two fold, it includes the right to
procreate as well as to abstain from procreating.40
24) Hence in light of the aforementioned case laws it is humbly submitted that the right to
privacy within the meaning of Article 21 encapsulates the right to parenthood and therefore
33
B.K. Parthasarathi v. Govt. of A.P, AIR 2000 AP 156.
34
Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, 1942 SCC Online USSC 125.
35
Karan Balraj Mehta v.UOI,Case No,8448/2022.
36
Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd) & Anr v Union of India & Ors 36, AIR 2017 SC 4161.
37
Gobind v. State of M.P,AIR 1975 SC 1378.See Also; Kharak Singh v. State of U.P,AIR 1963 SC 1295.
38
Hema Vijay Menon v. State of Maharashtra,(2015) 5 AIR Bom R 370.
39
Id.
40
Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn., (2009) 9 SCC 1.

COMPETITION 2023
the rights of the Petitioner to have a child through surrogacy, to find a family and to
procreate is a personal decision which cannot and should not have government intrusion in
a democratic society.
2.3 THERE IS A BLATANT VIOLATION OF ART.14
25) It is humbly submitted before this Honourable Court that there is a clear cut violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioners asserts that (2.3.1) The Act is arbitrary with
regard to the rights of widowers in opting for surrogacy (2.3.2) The test of reasonable
classification is not satisfied in the instant matter
2.3.1 The Act is arbitrary with regard to the rights of widowers in opting for surrogacy
26) The most important of all fundamental rights being right to equality envisaged under
Art.1441enshrines equality as a basic feature of the Constitution.42Though equality is
regarded as the ever shining dynamic concept under Art.14, it is pertinent to emphasize that
it is antithetic to arbitrariness.43. Section 2(s) of the surrogacy regulation Act 2021 says that
an intending woman is a 'widow' or a 'divorcee' who is between 35 to 45 years of age and
intends to avail this service44. The statute is silent with regard to the man.
27) In the instant case it is pertinent to note that the Act prohibits the rights of single parents
and widowers in opting surrogacy is thus regarded to be arbitrary as they have failed to
provide certain regulations and adequate criterias in bringing adults who wish to opt
surrogacy under one umbrella thereby putting the rights of the Petitioner in jeopardy.
Moreover, every state action must be non-arbitrary and reasonable45, which is not complied
in the instant matter.
2.3.2 The test of reasonable classification is not satisfied in the instant matter
28) Equality is a dynamic concept which cannot be cribbed, cabined and confined within the
traditional and doctrinaire limits. 46 Thus, Art.14 strikes at arbitrariness and ensures fairness
and equality of treatment.47 Elaborating on the point of classification under Art.14, reliance
is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jyoti Pershad v. The
41
SEERVAI H.M, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, 4th ed. 2002, Volume 2, Universal Book Traders.
42
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1325.
43
U.O.I. v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416.Se Also;Rajendra Kumar Mohatta v. New Delhi Municpal
Committee &Anr, 1998 (75) DLT836; Shahabudhin v. State of Bihar, 2010 (4) SCC 653; M Nagraj v.U.O.I.,
(2006)8 SCC 212.
44
See, section 2(s) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.
45
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab,AIR 1982 SC 1325.
46
U.O.I. v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416.Se Also;Rajendra Kumar Mohatta v. New Delhi Municpal
Committee &Anr, 1998 (75) DLT836; Shahabudhin v. State of Bihar, 2010 (4) SCC 653; M Nagraj v.U.O.I.,
(2006)8 SCC 212.
47
International Airport Authority v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi,(1979) 3 SCC 489

COMPETITION 2023
Administrator for the Union Territory of Delhi,48 Moreover, any such illegal, irrational,
arbitrary action or decision, whether in nature of legislature, administrative or quasi-judicial
exercise of power is liable to be quashed being violative of Art.14 of the Constitution.49
29) In the instant case the Act provides rights only to widow or divorcee between the age of 35
to 45 years and hence it applies unequally to widower and individuals (not married) who
are similarly placed. Therefore, it is clear that the principle of intelligible differentia is not
followed as there is no real and substantial distinction between those individuals who have
right to surrogacy and others left out.
30) Every action even a change of policy in any realm of state activity has to be informed fair
and non-arbitrary.50Moreover the statutes covering the rights of individuals must not
neither be guided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration51nor should not act illegally or
arbitrarily. Thus any such action or decision, whether in nature of legislature, administrative
or quasi-judicial exercise of power is liable to be quashed being violative of Art.14 of the
constitution.52 Further, it is pertinent to note that reasonable and non-arbitrary exercise of
discretion, without whim or fancy or caprice of the authority53 is an inbuilt requirement of
law and any unreasonable or arbitrary exercise of it violates Art.14.54Thus it is contended
that the restrictions imposed do not have any relation to the object sought to be achieved.
Therefore, it is contented that there is a violation of article 14 of the Constitution.
48
Jyoti Pershad v. The Administrator for the Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1961 SC 1602.See
Also;Bangalore Development Authority v.Air Craft Employees Co-operation Society,AIR 2002 SCC 246
49
Neelima Mishra v.Harinder Kaur Paintal & Ors,AIR 1990 SC 1402.
50
Aeltemesh rein,Advocate,Supreme Court of India v.U.O.I.,AIR 1988 SC 1768.
51
Ram Krishna Dalmia v.Justice S.R.Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538.See Also;Kathi Raning Rawat v.State of
Saurashtra,AIR 1952 SC 123.
52
Neelima Mishra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal & Ors,AIR 1990 SC 1402.See Also,Moumita Padar v.Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd, AIR 2007 SC 424.
53
Som Raj v. State of Haryana,AIR 1990 SC 1176.
54
Style(dress hand) v. UT,Chandigarh,(1999)7SCC89.See Also;Shrilekha Vidyarthi v.State of U.P,AIR 1991
SC 537.

COMPETITION 2023
3 SECTION 4(III)(c)(I) OF THE SURROGACY REGULATION ACT 2021 IS

Right to Equality is a necessary corollary of rule of law which pervades the Constitution55
31) The Counsel for the Petitioner side humbly contends that the couple, Satish and Sruthi
opted for surrogacy, and seek the help of Shanti, but they did not comply with the conditions
laid down in the provisions in Surrogacy Regulation Act, 202156. It is asserted that [3.1]
The Petition filed by the Petitioner, Satish is maintainable under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Nyayasthan [3.2] the relevant provision of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act,
2021 is invalid which required the intending couple to identify a willing woman, [3.3] the
relevant provisions regarding age limit for the intending couples is invalid and [3.4] The
provision of law which prohibited advertisement seeking surrogate mothers is invalid.
3.1 THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER; SATISH IS MAINTAINABLE

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF NYAYASTHAN
32) It is humbly contended by the Counsel for the Petitioner side that surrogacy is a private
affair and the precondition of a genetically related surrogate mother would be in violation
of the basic right to privacy and reproductive autonomy of infertile couples. It
violates Article 21 of the Constitution and hence, it is in violation of fundamental rights
which leads to the maintainability of the Writ Petition.
3.1.1 Petitioner has the Locus Standi to file Writ Petition
33) The Counsel for the Petitioner side humbly states that the petitioner, Satish has the locus
standi to file the writ Petition before the honourable Supreme Court of Nyayasthan. The
definition of locus standi has been explained to be a person aggrieved57. The term “locus
standi” is the right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court58.
55
Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 2002 SC 1553
56
Moot Proposition ¶ 4, page no: 3
57
Amit Kumar Dwivedi and ors v. State of U.P and ors, service, A.I.R. 2020 SC 345 (India).
58
Concise Oxford English Dictionary, (10th edn.,834).

COMPETITION 2023
34) In the instant case, the Petitioner had also approached the Honourable Supreme Court to
seek a direction to the Union of Nyayasthan to establish an independent authority for the
purpose of Surrogacy, as in the case of Vishaka and Ors v. the State of Rajasthan59, they
sought a new set of guidelines for the protection of women. Mandamus is a judicial remedy
which is in the form of a superior court to any government, court, corporation or public
authority to do or to forbear from doing some specific act which that body is obliged under
law to do or retrain from doing, as the case may be and which is in the nature of a public
duty and in certain cases of statutory duty as cited in A. T. Markose case60.
35) Hence, in the present case, the petitioners have the locus standi to file the instant case as
there is a clear-cut violation of fundamental rights on the part of Satish.
3.1.2 Infringement of Fundamental Rights
36) It is humbly contended by the Counsel for the Petitioner side that it is through the armoury
of expansive dynamism that the courts have able to give an all-inclusive interpretation to
the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of our Constitution61. It is hereby contended
that the Petitioner’s fundamental rights enshrined under Article 14, 15 and 21 have been
violated in the instant case. The Petitioner submits that the Right to access to the Supreme
Court under Article 32 is a Fundamental Right itself62 and maintainable63. Likewise, in the
instant case also, there is fundamental rights violation under the Constitution of Nyayasthan
regarding the provisions of Surrogacy Regulation Act, 2021.
3.1.3 Alternative Remedy is no bar to file Writ Petition
37) It is pertinent to note that the existence of an alternative remedy, whether adequate or not
does not alter the fundamentally64 and therefore, does not create an absolute legal bar on
the exercise of writ jurisdiction65.
59
Vishaka and Ors v. the State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 3011 (India)
60
State of Kerala v. Markose, A.I.R 1962 Ker 78 (India)
61
Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association and Anr v. Union of India, writ Petition (civil) 1303 of
1987 (India)
62
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 124 (India).
63
Francis Coralie Mulin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 557 (India)
64
All India Tea Trading Co. v. S.D.O, A.I.R 1962 Ass 20 (India).
65
Sripur Paper Mills v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, A.I.R. 1970 SC 1520

COMPETITION 2023
38) Here, Satish even though has an alternative remedy to go against his current issue, but it
will not be a bar to file a writ petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Nyayasthan. Writ of mandamus is issued on the following grounds: The
petitioner has a legal right66,
3.2 THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF THE SURROGACY (REGULATION) ACT, 2021
IS INVALID WHICH REQUIRED THE INTENDING COUPLE TO IDENTIFY A
WILLING WOMAN.
39) It is humbly contended by the Counsel for the Petitioner side that the Sec 4(III)(b)(II) of
the Surrogacy (regulation) Act 2021 is invalid which required the intending couple to
identify a willing woman67.
40) Altruistic surrogacy within the family is flawed as a concept, loaded with patriarchal
control over the reproductive choices of a woman, and going against the core of the right
to privacy and the right to reproduction, both of which are cherished fundamental rights.
The SC in its Constitution Bench judgment in K S Puttaswamy (2017)68 emphasised the
constitutional right of women to make reproductive choices in the instant case.
3.2.1 Petitioner seeking a direction to the Union of Nyayasthan to establish an

Independent Authority for the purpose of assisting intending couples/intending
women in identifying willing women for the purpose of surrogacy
41) It is submitted by the Counsel for the Petitioner side that there must be an independent
authority for the purpose of assisting intending couples/ intending women in identifying
willing women for the purpose of surrogacy. Finding an altruistic Surrogate will be the
most difficult step. It involves no monetary compensation to the surrogate mother other
than the medical expenses and insurance coverage during the pregnancy. inspect or cause
to be inspected any juvenile custodial home, or any other place of residence or institution
meant for children, under the control of the Central Government or any State Government
or any other authority, including any institution run by a social organisation; where children
66
Saraswati Industrial Syndicate v. Union of India, A.I.R 1975 SC 460 (India)
67
Sec 4(iii)(b)(II)- a willing woman shall act as a surrogate mother and be permitted to undergo surrogacy
procedures as per the provisions of this Act; provided that the intending couple or the intending woman shall
approach the appropriate authority with a willing woman who agrees to act as a surrogate mother.
68
Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India, WP (Civil) No. 494 of 2012 (India)

COMPETITION 2023
are detained or lodged for the purpose of treatment, reformation or protection and take up
with these authorities for remedial action69. The Surrogacy Act requires the public
dissemination of varied information about a couple’s infertility in the form of a certificate
sought from the District Medical Board under section 4(iii)(a)(I) and the order sought from
Magistrate’s court under sections 4(iii)(a)(II)70.
3.3 THE RELEVANT PROVISION REGARDING AGE LIMIT FOR THE INTENDING
COUPLES IS INVALID
42) It is humbly contended that Section 4(III)(c)(I) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act 202171
is constitutionally invalid as it affects the fundamental rights of the Petitioner and in
general. Sections says that the intending couple are married and between the age of 23 to
50 years in case of female and between 26 to 55 years in case of male on the day of
certification.
3.3.1 The relevant provision of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 which laid down an
upper age limit for the intending couple at 55 and 50 years is invalid
43) The petitioner’s side referred to a judgment of the Kerala High Court. In a significant
judgment, a single judge bench of Justice V.G. Arun, in a batch of petitions challenging the
upper eligibility limit of 50 years for women and 55 years for men prescribed under the
ART Act, observed that the fundamental right of individuals to procreate and build a family
based on personal choice is being restricted because of the upper age limit. Last month, the
high court in Nandini K & Anr. versus Union of India & Ors 72.observed that “…the
imposition of age restriction, without even a transitional provision, is irrational and
arbitrary.” The bench issued notices to the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development, and the Indian Council for Medical
Research for their responses. The Surrogacy Act puts women into two categories: first,
under section 4(iii)(c)(I)73, as part of intending couple being a woman between the age of
69
Baby Manji Yamada v. Union of India and Anr, WP(c) no. 369 of 2008
70
Section 4(iii)a(II) of Surrogacy Regulation Act, 2021
71
4(III)(c)(I)- the intending couple are married and between the age of 23 to 50 years in case of female and
between 26 to 55 years in case of male on the day of certification
72
Nandini K & Anr. versus Union of India represented by its Secretary & Ors, WP (Civil), Delhi High Court,
2022
73
Arun Muthuvel versus Union of India & Ors, WP (Civil) No. 756 of 2022

COMPETITION 2023
23 and 50; and secondly as an ‘intending woman’ defined under section 2(1)(s) as an
Nyayasthan woman who is a widow or divorcee between the age of 35 to 45 years.
3.3.2 Failure of Reasonableness Test under Article 14
44) The Counsel for the Petitioner side held that Article 14 of the Nyayasthan Constitution
states that “the state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory of Nyayasthan”. In one hand, where the
constitution provides equality to all, on the other hand, the criminal law discriminates the
female. This classification is constitutionally invalid and is inconsistent with the doctrine
laid down in the judgment of Budhan Choudhary v State of Bihar74 and State of West
Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar75, where it was held that the classification should have some
rational nexus to the objective that the act seeks to achieve. On the contention that the State
cannot regulate the reproductive choices of its citizens, it may be worthwhile to refer to
Article 16(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, extracted hereunder; “Article
16(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion,
have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to
marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution76. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness;
because the action made by police is arbitrary77 as it must necessarily involve negation of
equality78 by stating that the provisions under Surrogacy Regulation Act 2021 is invalid.
Hence, while going through the factual matrix of the case, it was very clear that there was
a violation of Article 14 of the Petitioner, Satish as here the classification made under
provisions of Surrogacy Regulation Act 2021 is of discriminative nature, as it shows a
violation of gender neutrality by clearly stated married and unmarried, regarding gender.
3.3.3. Violation in the rule of law because of Arbitrariness
74
Budhan Choudhary v State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 191 (India)
75
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 75 (India)
76
Article 16(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
77
Sharma Transport v. Government of A.P, MANU/SC/0759/2001,
78
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Ors v. Bachan Singh, 2010(5) ALT 4

COMPETITION 2023
45) It is contended that the Supreme Court observed in Soma Raj v. State of Haryana79 that
the absence of arbitrary power is the primary postulate of rule of law 80 upon which the
whole constitutional edifice is dependent. Discretion being exercised without any rule is a
concept which is antithesis of the concept 81. Most famously in the landmark case of
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala82, the Supreme Court opined that: - “the Rule of
Law is an essential part of the basic structure83 of the constitution and as such cannot be
amended by any act of Parliament”.
46) The Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu84 , gave a new content to
Article 1485 and said that Article 14 embodies a guarantee against arbitrariness. Article 14
essentially embodied a guarantee against ‘arbitrariness’ and therefore, the test of
‘reasonable classification’ was itself informed by the doctrine of ‘arbitrariness’. In this
sense, ‘arbitrariness’ was not a new test at all but in fact the principle underlying the
evolution of doctrinal tools and judicial standards for determination of the negation of the
right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. This is what the Court
said in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi86:,
47) In the instant case, there is no rationale in prescribing an upper age limit of 55 for men and
59 for women. It shows a clear-cut violation of Article 14, 15 of the Constitution of
Nyayasthan.
3.3.4 Violation of Right to life, personal liberty, privacy and reproductive right under Article
21
48) While going through the perusal of case, it is clear that Article 21 of Nyayasthan
constitution is given a wide interpretation by way of judicial activism following Maneka
Gandhi v Union of India87 . The Apex court, in Kartar Singh v state of Punjab88 held that
the procedure contemplated by article 21 must be “right, just and fair” and not arbitrary,
79
Soma Raj v. State of Haryana 1990 A.I.R. 1176.
80
According to Black’s law dictionary, rule of law may be specifically defined as supremacy of law where
decision is made by applying known principles or laws, where there is no intervention of discretion in application
of such principles or laws
81
H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, vol.1, Universal Book Traders, vol 3,4th ed.2002, page no:423
82
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1983)4 S.C.C 225
83
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 S.C.C 248
84
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 555.
85
Sharma Transport v. Government of A.P, A.I.R 2001 S.C. 567.
86
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 1 S.C.C.722.
87
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597(India)
88
Kartar Singh v state of Punjab, A.I.R. 1961 SC 1787(India)

COMPETITION 2023
fanciful or oppressive. In order that the procedure be right, just, fair, it must conform to the
principles of natural justice89. The Right to Life is an all-encompassing right90.
49) Hence, it is pertinent to note that in the instant case, the rights of individuals to found a
family is recognised as a human right by the United Nations and reproductive rights has
been recognised as an aspect of personal liberty under Article 2191 of the Constitution of
Nyayasthan92.
50) In the case of Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration93, held that there is no
doubt that a woman’s right to make reproductive choices is also a dimension of “personal
liberty” as understood under Article 21 of the Constitution of Nyayasthan. It is important
to recognise that reproductive choices can be exercised to procreate as well as to abstain
from procreating. This means that there should be no restriction whatsoever on the exercise
of reproductive choices such as a woman's right94 to refuse participation in sexual activity
or alternatively the insistence on use of contraceptive methods. Furthermore, women are
also free to choose birth control methods such as undergoing sterilisation procedures. Taken
to their logical conclusion, reproductive rights include a woman's entitlement to carry a
pregnancy to its full term, to give birth and to subsequently raise children. However, in the
case of pregnant women there is also a “compelling State interest” in protecting the life of
the prospective child. Therefore, the termination of a pregnancy is only permitted when the
conditions specified in the applicable statute have been fulfilled. Hence, the provisions of
the MTP Act, 1971 can also be viewed as reasonable restrictions that have been placed on
the exercise of reproductive choices.”
51) In Shayara Bano v. Union of India [(2017) 9 SCC 1]95, the Apex Court has termed
‘manifest arbitrariness’ as something done by the legislature capriciously, irrationally
and/or without adequate determining principle. Also, when something is done which is
excessive and disproportionate, such legislation would be manifestly arbitrary. At the same
time, this Court has to be mindful of the principle of ‘presumption of constitutionality of
legislations. On a careful balancing of the above principles, I find it difficult to hold the
prescription of upper age limit in Section 4(III)(c)(I) to be so excessive and arbitrary as to
warrant judicial interference. At the same time, they find the imposition of age restriction,
89
Bodhisattwa Gautam v Subhra Chakraborty, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 922(India)
90
id
91
Francis Coralie Mullin v The Administrator, the Union Territory of Delhi, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 746 (India)
92
Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009) 9 SCC 1,
93
id.
94
Karan Balraj Mehta and Anr v. Union of India, WP (civil) No. 8448 of 2022
95
Shayara Bano v. Union of India [(2017) 9 SCC 1],

COMPETITION 2023
without even a transitional provision, to be irrational and arbitrary. prohibition under
Section 4(III)(c)(I)96, if understood to be preventing even continuance of surrogacy already
commenced, would definitely amount to unreasonable and unjustified restriction on the
reproductive choice of the commissioning couple and would militate against the liberty
guaranteed under Article 21.
3.4 THE PROVISION OF LAW WHICH PROHIBITED ADVERTISEMENT SEEKING

SURROGATE MOTHERS IS INVALID
52) It is contended that the provision under Section 3(v) of the Act states that no surrogacy
clinic, registered medical practitioner, gynaecologist, paediatrician, embryologist or any
other person shall promote, publish, canvass, propagate or advertise or cause to be
promoted, published, canvassed, propagated or advertised. Section 38 (1)(b) states that No
person, organisation, surrogacy clinic, laboratory or clinical establishment of any kind shall
issue, publish, distribute, communicate or cause to be issued, published, distributed or
communicated, any advertisement97 in any manner regarding commercial surrogacy by any
means whatsoever, scientific or otherwise. Social Media adverts urging young women to
become surrogate mothers could be allowed under Law Commission Proposals. Hence, in
the instant case, the provision of law which prohibited advertisement seeking surrogate
mothers is invalid.

53) The Counsel for the Petitioner side humbly contends that the couple, Satish and Sruthi
opted for surrogacy, and seek the help of Shanti, but they did not comply with the conditions
laid down in the provisions in Surrogacy Regulation Act, 202198.
96
Section 4(III)(c)(I) of the Surrogacy Regulation Act, 2021
97
Sec 38(3) of the Surrogacy Regulation Act, 2021- (3) For the purposes of this section, the expression
“advertisement” includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper or any other document including advertisement
through internet or any other media, in electronic or print form and also includes any visible representation
made by means of any hoarding, wall-painting, signal light, sound, smoke or gas
98
Moot Proposition ¶ 4, page no: 3

COMPETITION 2023
54) By way of a separate petition, Shanti, as per the instruction of Satish and Sruthi, challenged
the constitutional validity of the provision which restricted the option of becoming
surrogate mother to only ever married women aged between 25 and 35 years having a child
of her own99. It is contended that [4.1] The Petition filed by the Petitioner, Shanti is
maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of Nyayasthan and [4.2] Section 4(III)
(b)(I) of the Surrogacy Regulation Act 2021 violates Fundamental Rights
4.1 THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER; SHANTI IS MAINTAINABLE
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF NYAYASTHAN
55) The Petition filed by the Petitioner, Shanti is maintainable under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Nyayasthan, as the Petitioner has the locus standi to file writ petition since
the Petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 14 and 21 is violated.
4.1.1 Petitioner has the Locus Standi to file Writ Petition
56) It is humbly submitted that maintainability of writ petition for enforcement of fundamental
rights can be questioned only on the ground of laches100, delays and acquiescence101,
drafting of petition in an undignified manner102, malicious in nature103, where disputed
question of facts are involved or question of law has been raised in the abstract104 to be
enforced105. In the instant case, none of the aforementioned exception exists. The Counsel
for the Petitioner side humbly submitted before the Supreme Court that a writ petition can
be filed under Article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of fundamental rights, as
guaranteed by the Part III of the constitution. In the instant case the petitioner has the locus
standi to file the petition and also alternative remedy is no bar to file a petition. In the case
of L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others 106 a bench of seven judges had
unequivocally declared that Article 32 was an integral and essential feature of the
constitution. This was also reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case S.P. Sampath
99
Moot Proposition ¶ 6, page number 4
100
Rabindra Nath Bose and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1970 SC 470.
101
R v. Diary Produce Quota Tribunal (1990) 2 AII ER 434 : (1990) 2 WLR 1302.
102
M.K Mallick, Law and Practice, 47 (12th ed., 2012).
103
S.A. Kini v. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 893 : (1985) 3 SCR 754 : 1985 Supp. SCC 122(¶ 4) ; R.V.
Customs and Excise Commissioner ex parte Cooke and Stevenson, 1 AII ER 1068 (1970, Queen Bench
Division, Divisional Court).
104
Indian legal and Economic forum v. U.O.I (1997) 10 SCC 728.
105
Satish Chandra v. Union of India, AIR 1953 SC 250
106
L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others, A.I.R 1997 3 S.C.C 261 (India)

COMPETITION 2023
Kumar v. Union of India107 and invoked from time to time.108 And even in Olga Tellis v.
Bombay Municipal Corpn.109 .
57) It was also held by the SC in Kesavanantha Bharathi v. State of Kerala,110 and in the case
of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India111 it was held that any member of the public or social
action group acting bonafide can invoke the writ jurisdiction. Part. III of the Constitution
does not only confer Fundamental Rights but confirms their existence and gives them
protection112. Any law made by either legislature in contravention of such fundamental
right must be held to be void113. Art. 32 gives the court a very wide discretion in the matter
of framing the writs to suit the exigencies of particular cases 114.” As will be shown
presently, the power conferred by the present Article is the most potent weapon in the hand
of our Supreme Court and that it is the duty of the Supreme Court to use it in a case properly
coming under the Article115
58) The sole object of the Article is the enforcement of the fundamental rights guaranteed under
Part III of the Constitution of Nyayasthan116. No matter whether the necessity arises out of
117
an executive action or action of the Legislature, Art. 32 can be utilised to enforce the
fundamental right in either event.118
107
S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 387 (India)
108
Sunil Kumar Rai v. The State of Bihar W.P. (CIVIL) No. 1052 of 2021 (India).
109
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., 1986 A.I.R. 1980:1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51. See also: Assam
Sanmilita Mahasangha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 1 (India).
110
A.I.R. 1973 SC 1461 (India).
111
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, A.I.R 1982 S.C. 149 (India)
112
M Nagaraj v. UOI, A.I.R. 2007 SC 71: (2006) 8 SCC. 212 (India).
113
Kochunni v. State of Mad., A.I.R. 1969 SC 225 (India); Mahendra v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1963 SC 1019
(India).
114
Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India. (1950) SCR 869: A.I.R. 1951 SC 41. But see Om Prakash v. Ram Kumar,
A.I.R. 1991 SC 409: (1991) 1 SCC 441.
115
Kochunni v. State of Madras. A.I.R. 1959 SC 725 (729): 1959 (Supp-2) SCR 316: (1959) 2 SCA 116
116
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1955 SC 27: (1950) SCR 88: Ramjilal v. ITO, A.I.R. 1952 SC 97
(1951) SCR 127; Laxmanappa v. UOI, A.I.R. 1955 SC 3: (1955) 1 SCR 769; Bhagwandas v. UOI A.I.R. 1956
SC 175; Daryao v. State of UP, A.I.R. 1961 SC 1457 (1962) 1 SCR 574, Ujjan Bai v. State of UP, A.I.R. 1962
SC 1621 (1963) 1 SCR 778; Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union v. UOI, (1981) 1 SCC 568 A.I.R. 1981 SC 344;
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. UOI, A.I.R. 1984 SC 802: (1984) 3 SCC 161: (1984) 2 SCR 67, Muneeb-ul-Rehman
v. Govt. of J & K, (1984) 4 SCC 24: A.I.R. 1984 SC 1585; Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. v. UOI, A.I.R. 1986 SC
872: (1986) 1 SCC 133; Mohd. Zahir Khan v. UOI, 1993 (Supp-2) SCC 12; Bodhisatwa v.Subhra
Chakraborthy, A.I.R. 1996 SC 922: (1996) 1 SCC 490.
117
(1986) 1 SCC 133; Mohd. Zahir Khan v. UOI, 1993 (Supp-2) SCC 12; Bodhisatwa v. Subhra Chakraborthy,
A.I.R. 1996 SC 922: (1996) 1 SCC 490.
118
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhary v. UOI, A.I.R. 1951 SC 41: (1950) SCR 869; R.D. Shetty v. International A.I.R.port
Authority, A.I.R. 1979 SC 1628: (1979) 3 SCC 489, Kasturilal v. State of J&K, A.I.R. 1980 SC 1992: (1980) 4
SCC 1: High Court of Judicature of Bombay v. Shirish Kumar, (1997) 6 SCC 339 A.I.R. 1961 SC 1457 : (1962)
1SCR 574.

COMPETITION 2023
59) It is a well settled position in law that access to justice is a human right. 119 It is hereby
contended that the Petitioner’s fundamental rights enshrined under Article 14, 15 and 21
have been violated in the instant case. The Petitioner submits that the Right to access to the
Supreme Court under Article 32 is a Fundamental Right itself120. Art 32 provides a very
important safeguard against the violation of Fundamental Rights of an individual. The
Constitution does not place any fetter on the exercise of the extraordinary
jurisdiction121.The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 (1) can be
invoked when there is an infringement of Fundamental Rights 122. Hence, the Petitioner,
Shanti has the locus standi to file writ petition challenging the provision of Surrogacy
Regulation Act, 2021.
4.1.2 Infringement of Fundamental Rights
60) It is submitted that Part III of the Constitution which deals with “Fundamental rights” is
regarded as the basic structure of the Constitution123. The doctrine of basic structure not
only applies against the amendments under the exercise of constituent power124 but also
against exercise of legislative125 and executive power126. It is submitted that Part III of the
Nyayasthan Constitution which deals with “Fundamental Rights” is regarded as the basic
structure of the Constitution hence any rule or order, judgment cannot violate it127. This
honourable Court has in I.R Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu128, established the pre-
eminence of judicial review of each and every part of the Constitution.
119
Kochunni v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1959 SC 725 (729): 1959 (Supp-2) SCR 316: (1959) 2 SCA 116 1959
SCJ 457;State of Mysore v. V.K. Kangan, A.I.R. 1975 SC 2190 (1976) 1 SCR 369: (1976) 2 SCC 895 (para.
16), Raja Jagdambika Pratap Narain Singh v. Central Board of Direct Taxes, A.I.R. 1975SC 1816 (1976) 1 SCR
49: (1975) 4 SCC 578; Ashok v. Collector, A.I.R. 1980 SC 112: (1980) 1 SCR 491 (1980) 1 SCC 180; A.K.
Gopalan v.State of Madras, (1950) SCR 88: A.I.R. 1950 SC 27: 1950 SCJ 174; Somawanti v. State of Punjab,
A.I.R. 1963 SC 151 (165): (1963) 2 SCR 774; Daryao v. State of U.P. A.I.R. 1961 SC 1457 (1461): (1962) 1
SCR 574 (1962) 1 SCJ 702 (paras. 6-8). [See, however, contrary opinion of three Judge Bench in Bishan v.
Govt. of Punjab, (1992) 20 ATC 211 (para. 2) SC];: Tata Iron & Steel Co. v. Sarkar, A.I.R. 1961 SC 65 (68):
(1961) 1 SCR 379, Bishan Das v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1961 SC 1570 (1575): (1962) 2 SCR 69: (1961) 2 SCA
456; Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, (1950) SCR 594 A.I.R. 1950 SC 124: 1950 SCJ 418. But see
Confederation of All Nagaland State Services Employees Association v. State of Nagaland, (2006) 1 SCC 496;
Central Bank Retires Association v. Union of India, (2006) 1 SCC 497 P.N. Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of
Delhi, (1987) 4 SCC 609; Louise Fernandez v. Union of India. (1988) I SCC 201; Avinash Chand Gupta v.
State of U.P., (2004) 2 SCC 726, Kanubhai Brahmbatt v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1987 SC 1159 (1989) Supp-2
SCC 310.
120
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 124 (India).
121
State of Madras v. V.G. Row, A.I.R. 1952 S.C .196 (India).
122
Shantabhai v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 532 (India).
123
I.R Colho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1998) 7 SCC 550.
124
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225; Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975
Supp. SCC 1.
125
Waman Rao v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 362.
126
S.R Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 2.
127
I.R. Coelho (Dead) By Lrs vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 11 January, 2007
128
I R Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1999) 7 SCC 580 (India).

COMPETITION 2023
61) Likewise, in the instant case, there is fundamental rights violation under Article 14, 15 and
21 of the Constitution of Nyayasthan while comparing with the provisions of Surrogacy
Regulation Act, 2021.
4.1.3 Alternative remedy is no bar to file Writ Petition

62) It is held that the existence of an alternative remedy, whether adequate or not does not alter
the fundamentally. Discretionary nature of Supreme Court writ jurisdiction and therefore
does not create an absolute legal bar on the exercise of writ jurisdiction129. This rule of
exhaustion of the statutory remedy is not rigid but somewhat flexible and it is ordinarily a
matter of the discretion of the writ petition130.
63) Hence, there is no doubt that if a citizen of Nyayasthan is deterred in any case from
approaching this Court in exercise of his right under art. 32 of the Constitution it would
amount to a serious and direct interference in the administration of justice in the country131,
Hence, it was held by the Apex Court that the Petition filed by the Petitioner, Shanti is
maintainable.
4.2 SEC 4(III)(b)(I) OF THE SURROGACY REGULATION ACT VIOLATES

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
64) In the case in hand, there are challenges on the basis of violation of Articles 14 and 15 of
the Constitution. The Surrogacy Act criminalises the act of choosing surrogacy for
everyone except married couples and a small section of women. The ART Act and the
Surrogacy Act exclude and discriminate, without any rationality, against same-sex couples
and other members of the LGBTQI community, single women (those who are neither
widowed nor divorced, and those who are widowed and/or divorced and less than the age
of 35 or more than 45 years). Also excluded are single men, couples suffering from
secondary infertility, and couples in which either or both partners do not fall within the
prescribed age brackets.
65) The limitations imposed on who can be surrogate mother in terms of Section 2 (zg) read
with Section 4(iii)(b)(I) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, limit the options available
129
Sripur Paper Mills v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, A.I.R. 1970 SC 1520
130
A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani, A.I.R. 1961 SC 1506
131
Arnab Manorajan Goswami v. The State of Maharashtra, Crl. Appl. 742/2020 (India).

COMPETITION 2023
to an ‘intending couple’ or ‘intending woman’ and diminish their chances of finding a
consenting surrogate mother, held in the case of Karan Balraj Mehta and Anr v. Union of
India132. Under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Rules, 2022, the surrogate can attempt a
surrogacy procedure for up to three cycles, whereas under Section 27(2) of the ART Act,
an oocyte donor can donate only once in her lifetime. This implies that the number of egg
donors will be totally restricted and the costs of obtaining the oocyte would be exorbitant133.
4.2.1 The said provision violates Article 14 of the Constitution of Nyayasthan
66) However, Section 4(iii)(b) (I) of the Act states, “No woman other than an ever-married
woman having a child of her own and between the age of 25-35 on the day of implantation,
shall be a surrogate mother or help in surrogacy by donating her egg or oocyte or
otherwise”.
67) The best eligibility criteria to maximise the chances of finding the best surrogate mother
would be any healthy woman above the age of majority and the needless conditions of
being genetically related, of a particular age, married and already having at least one child
only constrict the universe of available candidates who may otherwise become healthy
surrogate mothers134. The Bill allows for surrogacy only for married couples and to that
extent, excludes the people belonging to the LGBTQ community, live-in couples, and
single, divorced or widowed parents, thereby, criminalising their exercise of reproductive
autonomy in this regard. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees a fundamental right to
equality135. Likewise, in the instant case, this shall not stand the equality test or the test of
reasonable classification under the Article.
4.2.2 The said provision violates Article 15 of the Constitution of Nyayasthan
68) It is pertinent to note that the eligibility criteria to maximise the chances of finding the best
surrogate mother would be any healthy woman above the age of majority and the needless
conditions of being genetically related, of a particular age, married and already having at
least one child only constrict the universe of available candidates who may otherwise
become healthy surrogate mothers. The Act recognises only altruistic surrogacy, meaning no
remuneration paid to the surrogate apart from expenses that might be prescribed or incurred
132
Karan Balraj Mehta and Anr v. Union of India, (Civil) No. 8848 of 2022
133
Sec 27(2) of the ART Act
134
Id.
135
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 555.

COMPETITION 2023
due to insurance coverage or medical expenditure. Also, surrogacy is now open only to
Nyayasthan nationals, to address citizenship issues that often crop up when the surrogacy is
commissioned by an overseas couple.
69) In Kathi Ranning v. State of Saurashtra136 and in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India137.
the Supreme Court held that when a law comes within the prohibition of Article 15 it cannot
be validated by recourse to Article 14 by applying the principle of reasonable classification.
Laws are given a mandate of being applicable to every person equally in a particular society
without any injustice being caused to any gender138. It has helped the Nyayasthan society
to stand tall and proud despite such a huge diversity and all kinds of sexism, racism139.
Hence, while going through the factual matrix of the case it is very clear that the provisions
of the Surrogacy Regulation Act which restricted the option of becoming surrogate mother
to only ever married women aged between 25 and 35 years having a child of her own in
unconstitutional.
4.2.3 Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India
70) The Petitioners have relied upon in the case of Karan Balraj Mehta and Anr v. Union of
India140, which have stated that commercial surrogacy is the only option available to them.
It is not the domain of the state to interfere with such rights as the constitute the fundamental
rights. It is the prerogative of the persons to decide the mode of parenthood, that is, whether
to have child born naturally or by means of surrogacy.
71) The surrogacy law needs an overhaul as it seems to be out of sync with the progressive thought
of superior constitutional courts, which have always held women’s reproductive autonomy
and every citizen’s procreative rights in the highest esteem141. The principle of autonomy is
enshrined within Article 21 of the Nyayasthan Constitution, which deals with the right to
life and personal liberty142.
72) Right to life and personal liberty under Art. 21 also includes the right to live with human
dignity143and all other aspects that bestow meaning upon the life of a person, make it worth
136
Kathi Ranning v. State of Saurashtra, A.I.R 1952 SC 123.
137
Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477.
138
http://www.lawcommunity.in (last visited on 1oth Feb 2023)
139
Subhodh Asthana, Article 15 of the Constitution: Prohibition of discrimination and unreasonable
differentiation, http://www.blogipleaders.in (last visited on 11th Feb 2023)
140
Karan Balraj Mehta and Anr v. Union of India.
141
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India; A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597(India)
142
Allegeyer v. Louisiana; (1897) 165 US 578(India)
143
Danial Latifi v. Union of India; (2001) 7 S.C.C. 740; Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn; (1985) 3
S.C.C. 545; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India; (1978) 1 S.C.C. 248(India)

COMPETITION 2023
living144 and allow for the expression of our human selves145. The Supreme Court has gone
as far as to say that it also includes expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about
and mixing with fellow human beings.146 Having such right147. In the present case also life
and liberty are affected due to the procedure which is arbitrary, fanciful and oppressive 148.
73) Furthermore, the Right to Privacy was recognized by the Supreme Court of Nyayasthan as
a part and parcel of the Right to Life and Liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution
of Nyayasthan149 stated about privacy150. As in the case of Sudershan Chopra v. Punjab
State Human Rights Commission and Ors151, Human rights violations in the mental health
context remain significant throughout the world and cannot be explained by a lack of
resources alone152, keeping our right to dignity, freedom and health at centre153. Various
fundamental human rights are interdependent therefore undermining one leads to a poor
impact on others154.
74) Likewise, in the instant case, the provisions of the Surrogacy Regulation Act which
restricted the option of becoming surrogate mother to only ever married women aged
between 25 and 35 years having a child of her own in unconstitutional as it is in violation
of Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of Nyayasthan. The counsel humbly contended
that all these provisions is unconstitutional.
144
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi;(1981) 1 S.C.C. 608; Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India; (1978) 1 S.C.C. 248(India)
145
Ammini E.D. v. Union of India; A.I.R. 1995 Ker 252.
146
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi; (1981) 1 S.C.C. 608(India)
147
Chameli Singh v. State of U.P.; A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1051(India)
148
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab; A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 456(India)
149
Justice K.S. Puttuswamy (Retd) v. Union of India and Ors; (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1
150
Id.
151
Sudershan Chopra v. Punjab State Human Rights Commission and Ors, CWP 21104 OF 2020(India)
152
Puras D, Gooding P. Mental health and human rights in the 21st century. World Psychiatry. (2019) 18:42–3.
doi: 10.1002/wps.20599
153
World Health Organization. Ethical Considerations in Developing a Public Health Response to Pandemic
Influenza (2007).
154
Institute of Medicine (US) Forum on Microbial Threats. Ethical and Legal Considerations in Mitigating
Pandemic Disease: Workshop Summary (2007). Available online at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK54169/

COMPETITION 2023
PRAYER
In the lights of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most humbly
submitted that the court may please adjudge and declare that:
1. The petition filed by Rajesh under Article 32 of the Constitution of Nyayasthan to

disclose and publish the copies of the educational certificate and other documents of
the members of the board is constitutionally valid.
2. The Surrogacy regulation act 2021 which denied the permission to a widower to have
a child is invalid.
3. Section 4(III)(c)(I) of the Surrogacy Regulation Act 2021 is constitutionally invalid.
4. Section 4(III)(b)(I) of the Surrogacy Regulation Act 2021 is constitutionally invalid
AND/OR
Pass any other order, writ or directions that deems fit in the interest of justice, equity
and good faith
Place:
Date:
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Petitioners
SD/-

Team SMCC 1 - Petitioner

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Team SMCC 1 - Petitioner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAMCODE- SMCC 1

SREE NARAYANA LAW COLLEGE 3RD ALL INDIA MOOT COURT

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF NYAYASTHAN

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE NYAYASTHAN, 1950

WRIT PETITION NO. ****/2023

CASE CONCERNED WITH CHALLENGING VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF

SANDEEP AND ORS. ....................................................................... PETITIONERS

UNION OF NYAYASTHAN .................................................... …. RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................... 7

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................ 16

STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................................................................. 17

ISSUES RAISED ............................................................................................................ 19

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ..................................................................................... 20

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ......................................................................................... 22

1. THE PETITION FILED BY RAJESH UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS 2

MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS 3

MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS 4

ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM

A.I.R. All India Reporter

ILR Indian Law Reporter

S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases

S.C.R. Supreme Court Reporter

u/s Under Section

MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS 5

I.LR Indian Law Review

U.O. I Union of India

P&H Punjab and Haryana

Crim.LR Criminal Law Reporter

ART Assisted Reproductive Technology

PIO Public Information Officer

RTI Right To Information

MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS 6

1) Aeltemesh rein,Advocate,Supreme Court of India v.U.O.I.,AIR 1988 SC 1768.

MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS 7

MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS 8

MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS 9

MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS 10

MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS 11

MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS 12

1) THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, 1950

1) INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS (ICCPR)

D. ARTICLES AND REPORTS

2) SURROGACY REGULATIONS IN INDIA,

3) SURROGACY LAWS IN INDIA ,

4) SURROGACY BILL TO BENEFIT WIDOWS AND DIVORCEES

MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS 13

5) SURROGACY BIOMARKETS IN INDIA: TROUBLING STORIES FROM BEFORE

6) RTI ACT AND CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: AN ANALYSIS

7) RIGHT TO INFORMATION IN CONSONANCE WITH RIGHT TO PRIVACY

8) Subhodh Asthana, Article 15 of the Constitution, Prohibition of discrimination and

1. Mahendra Pal Singh, M.N. Shukla’s Constitution of India, EBC Publication,13th

MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS 14

1. Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, (9th Ed. 2010)

13. DATABASES AND WEBSITES

MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS 15

THE PETITIONERS HAVE THE HONOUR TO SUBMIT BEFORE THE HON’BLE

MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS 16

ORIGIN OF THE SURROGACY REGULATION ACT 2021

GROUNDS THAT LED TO FILING OF WRIT PETITION

MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS 17