Moot Memorial
Moot Memorial
Moot Memorial
DHINESH V
17040142007
MR. WEASLEY...…………………...……………………………………...PETITIONER
Vs
UNION OF GRINGOTTS..………………………………………………...RESPONDENT
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS Pg. No
1. LIST OF ABBREVATIONS 4
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5
I. CASES 6
II. CONSTITUTIONS 6
III. STATUTES. 6
IV. DATABASES. 6
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION. 7
4. STATEMENTS OF FACTS. 9
5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES. 10
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS. 11
2
2. PASSIVE EUTHANASIA IS PERMISSIBLE BY SC UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF
8. PRAYER 18
3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I. CASES
4
3. Maruti Shripati Dubai vs State Of Maharashtra Bom CR 499,(1986) 88 BOMLR 589
4. P.Rathinam vs Union Of India 1994 AIR 1844, 1994 SCC (3) 394
II. CONSTITUTIONS:
III. STATUES
5
IV.LEGAL DATABASES
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/235821
• www.manupatra.com
• www.indiakanoon.org
• www.judis.nic.in
• www.westlaw.com
Digests
M.P Jain, Indian constitutional law, 5th edition 2003, Wadhwa and co.
D.D Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, Wadhwa& Co., Nagpur, (4thedn.,
2008)
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law,Wadhwa and Co., Nagpur, (5thedn., 2003).
V.N Shukla, Constitution of India, Eastern Book Co., Lucknow, (10thedn., 2001).
6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Republic of Gringotts has the jurisdiction hear the instant matter
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs,
warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any
(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
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise
7
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Rights and Directive Principles of state policy enshrined under the constitution hold a
premier position in the legal system of the country. The major segment of people lives below
poverty line with the Human Development Index (HDI) being 0.547.
The govt. hospitals in Gringotts are poor in terms of life saving equipment and the private
2. Mr. Weasley is a citizen of Gringotts and a resident of Azkaban (capital of Gringotts) who is
a low paid employee in a private firm and the soul breadwinner of his family. He lives with
his wife Mrs. Weasley and three children. His wife was diagnosed with a rare spinal disease
and was admitted to Gringotts Institute of Medical Sciences (GIMS), which is controlled by
central government.
3. She has been under expert medical treatment and prescribed lifesaving drugs at a cost of Rs.
95,000/- month approximately which incurred a heavy loss upon the family. To secure
money for continuation of treatment, the marginal land owned by the family has been sold
and the residential house had to be mortgaged. The children had to abandon their studies.
4. Mrs. Weasley is now on life support system and is advised by doctors to continue with the
treatment. She suffers excruciating pain and on her request the family has requested the
doctors to withdraw the life support system. The doctors have refused to do so because it
would be contrary to the professional medical ethics and would amount to a penal offence.
5. As a result, the family was, within a short span of time, reduced to an extreme state of
impoverishment and therefore, in December 2019, the aggrieved filed a writ petition in
Supreme Court of Gringotts, praying for a direction to the medical superintendent of GIMS
8
to withdraw the life support system so that Mrs. Weasley may die and get rid of her pain and
9
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE 1
ISSUE 2
10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1
“Why should I fear death? If I am, then death is not. If death is, then I am not.Why should I fear
– Epicurus
The right to live with dignity also includes the smoothening of the process of dying in
case of a terminally ill patient or a person in PVS with no hope of recovery1. A failure to legally
recognize advance medical directives may amount to non-facilitation of the right to smoothen the
ISSUE 2
It is an undisputed that Doctors’ primary duty is to provide treatment and save life but not in the
case when a person has already expressed his desire of not being subjected to any kind of
treatment. It is a common law right of people, of any civilized country, to refuse unwanted
medical treatment and no person can force him/her to take any medical treatment which the
11
ADVANCED ARGUMENTS
“Why should I fear death? If I am, then death is not. If death is, then I am not.Why should I fear
– Epicurus
The right to live with dignity also includes the smoothening of the process of dying in
case of a terminally ill patient or a person in PVS with no hope of recovery. A failure to legally
recognize advance medical directives may amount to non-facilitation of the right to smoothen the
The instant Writ Petition is being filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in
public interest to bring to the notice of this Hon'ble Court 2 the serious problem of violation of
fundamental right to life, liberty, privacy and the right to die with dignity of the people of this
country guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India 3. It is submitted that the
unwanted medical treatment, like feeding through hydration tubes, being kept on ventilator and
other life supporting machines in order to artificially prolong their natural life span. This
2
Common cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India on March 8th 2018
3
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 648
12
sometimes leads to extension of pain and agony both physical and mental which they desperately
seek to end by making an informed choice and clearly expressing their wishes in advance, (called
a living will) in the event of they going into a state when it will not be possible for them to
express their wishes. In the present regime of laws even clearly expressed wishes of such patients
to be permitted to die with dignity are not respected and it is difficult for the medical practitioner
to take a decision in accordance with these wishes, due to the fear of facing penal consequences 4.
This situation is depriving the citizens of the country of a precious fundamental right guaranteed
to them by the Constitution, namely the right to die with dignity, which is implicit in Article 21
of the Constitution.
That the Petitioner is thus praying to this Hon'ble Court to declare 'right to die with dignity' (not
'right to die' per se) as a fundamental right of the people of this country enshrined in Article 21 of
the Constitution. Tire Petitioner is further seeking direction from this Hon'ble Court, directing
the Respondents, to adopt suitable procedures, in consultation with State Governments where
necessary, to ensure that persons of deteriorated health or terminally ill should be able to execute
a document titled "MY LIVING WILL & ATTORNEY AUTHORISATION" which can be
presented to hospital for appropriate action in event of the executant being admitted to the
hospital with serious illness which may threaten termination of life of fundamental rights of such
persons as guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are not infringed or
4
Ramchandra Shanbaug vs Union Of India & Ors (2011)
13
RIGHT TO LIFE - RIGHT TO LIVE WITH DIGNITY - RIGHT TO DIE WITH
DIGNITY
The Right to Life is one of the basic fundamental rights which have been provided to the
people of this country in the Constitution5. This Hon'ble Court over the years in various cases has
enlarged the scope of this right in many facets of life some of which includes shelter, food,
health, privacy etc. It is submitted in whatever way this Hon'ble Court has enlarged the scope of
the right to life the basis of it has always been the right to live with human dignity 6. In the case of
Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi 7 reported in (1981)t SCC 608
this Hon'ble Court has held in very clear terms that right to life does not mean a mere animal
existence of a human being. This Hon'ble Court has held that right to life will mean right to live
with dignity with basic amenities of life like food, shelter, health etc.
In view of these judgments and particularly in the light of the observations made by this Hon'ble
Court in the case of Francis Coralie supra, one fundamental issue which arises is that whether the
right to live with dignity, in the context of the issue raised in his petition well include in its fold
the 'right to die with dignity' or not8. Since where the ebbing out process of the life has already
started or where the person has gone into a persistent vegetative state there is no 8 such a person
can in no way be termed as living a life with dignity and hence the natural corollary emerges that
5
Giyan Kaur v. State of Punjab 1996 AIR 946
6
Aruna Ramchandra ShanbaugVs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors
7
Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi(1981)t SCC 608
8
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993) 1 AII ER 821
14
in such a situation the person should have a right to die with dignity. The answer to this question
has been subtly answered by the Constitution Bench of this Hon'ble Court in its observations in
the case of Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab and in other connected matters, (i996) 2 SCC 648
while adjudicating on the vires of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code and also on the issue of
declaring Right to Die as a part of the Right to Life. Justice J.S. Verma, as he then was, while
speaking for this, Hon'ble Court has observed in Para 24 and 25 that '...The right to life including
the right to live with human dignity would mean the existence of such a right up to the end of
natural life. This also includes the right to a dignified life up to the point of death including a
dignified procedure of death. In other words, this may include the right of a dying man to also
die with dignity when his life is ebbing out. But the right to die with dignity at the end of life is
not to be confused or equated with the right to die an unnatural death curtailing the natural span
of life. A question may arise, in the context of a dying man who is terminally ill or in a persistent
vegetative state that he may be permitted to terminate it by a premature extinction of his life in
those circumstances. This category of cases may fall within the ambit of the right to die with
dignity as a part of right to live with dignity, when death due to termination of natural life is
certain and imminent and the process of natural death has commenced. The debate even in such
The interpretation of the above observation in the judgment will show that though there can be
no right to die per se and it cannot be a part of right to life however, the 'right to die with dignity'
can be a part of right to live with dignity. The Petitioner, most respectfully submitted, is
emphasizing on this 'right to die with dignity' as a part of right to live with dignity which is a part
of Right to Life as guaranteed to the people of this country under Article 21 of the Constitution.
9
Common cause v Union of India 2018
15
The life, which is being sustained by the help of artificial life supports just to keep the person
alive physiologically in a complete vegetative state cannot be termed as healthy and a dignified
ISSUE 2
It is an undisputed fact that Doctors’ primary duty is to provide treatment and save life but not in
the case when a person has already expressed his desire of not being subjected to any kind of
treatment. It is a common law right of people, of any civilized country, to refuse unwanted
medical treatment and no person can force him/her to take any medical treatment which the
The core issue which revolves around this whole subject of advance directives and provision of
executing Living Wills is if the person is in a medical State where there are no chances of no
choice but to submit himself to the doctors who might put him on the life supports just to prolong
his life. It is submitted that to submit to death while using life-sustaining treatment and
prolonging tire mental and physical pain and agony of the patient and/or his/her relatives and to
be able to make a choice in this regard are two different things. The matter of choice is an
important personal decision of the patient to use or not to use the life-sustaining treatment. The
petitioner is not advocating that each and every person should be compulsorily required to
16
execute the Living Will or issue advance directives. The endeavor of the petitioner is only to
seek a choice' for the people which is not available at present and they are left to the mercy of
doctors who to save themselves from any penal consequences half heartedly, despite knowing
that the death is inevitable continue administering the treatment which the person might not have
wanted to continue with. It is most respectfully submitted that the freeness/freedom to execute or
not to execute the Living Will or issue advance directives is paramount. The persons will also be
free to issue advance directives both in a positive and negative manner, meaning thereby that it is
not that a person is necessarily required to issue directive that the life sustaining treatment should
not be given to him in the event of he/she going into persistent vegetative state or in an
irreversible state. The person can also issue directives as to all the possible treatment which
17
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
A. Allow the Writ petitioner filed by Mr.Weasley seeking to withdraw the life support
system of his wife Mrs.Weasley and free her from pain and sufferings.
B. Allow the Writ petitioner filed by Mr.Weasley to seek for compensation. Despite
spending a huge amount on special care for his partner and still there wasn’t any
improvement in patient condition. As a result, the family reduced to an extreme state of
impoverishment.
And pass any other order in favour of the petitioner that it may deem fit in the ends of justice,
S/d______________
Petitioner)
DHINESH V
18