Mercy Killing

PENDEKANTI VENKATASUBBAIAH MEMORIAL
NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………………….1
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ……………………………………………………………….2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ………………………………………………………………..4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION …………………………………………………….....9
STATEMENT OF FACTS ………………………………………………………………...10
ISSUES RAISED …………………………………………………………………………...14
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS …………………………………………………………..15
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ……………………………………………………………….17
PRAYER ……………………………………………………………………………………37
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
PACE Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
UNCRC United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the
Child
AIR All India report
Art Article
acc. According
& And
Anr Another
b/w Between
ECHR European Court of Human Rights
HR Human Rights
CPC Code of Civil Procedure
CWC Child Welfare Committee
US United States
DPSP Directive Principles of State Policy
FR Fundamental Right
Govt., Government
UK United Kingdom

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
NASUAD National Association of States United for
Aging and Disabilities
Ltd., Limited
NIA National Institute on Aging
UOI Union of India
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reports
Viz., Like
Hon'ble Honourable
H.C High court
PIL Public Interest Litigation
NGO Non Government Organisation
UN United Nation’s

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES
1. The Constitution of India.
2. Universal declaration of human rights.
3. International covenant on civil and political rights.
4. Maintenance and welfare of parents & senior citizens Act 2007.
5. International Convention on the Rights of the Child.
6. Indian Penal Code, 1860.
7. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
8. European Charter of Fundamental Rights.
9. European Convention on Human Rights.
10. African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights.
11. American Convention on Human Rights.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES (Judicial Pronouncements)
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
INDIAN CASES
1. Pt. Parmanand Katara v. UOI
2. P. Rathinam v. Union of India,
3. Naresh Marotrao Sakhre v. Union of India
4. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab
5. Case of Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug
6. Case of Sonali Mukherjee, Jharkhand
7. Case of Dilip Machua, Jharkhand
8. Case of Jeet Narayan of Mirzapur in Uttar Pradesh
9. Case of Dennis Kumar, Tamil Nadu
10. Case of Mr Narayan and Mrs Iravati Lavate, Mumbai
11. Case of Anamika Mishra, UP
FOREIGN CASES
1. Sanles v. Spain
2. Haas v. Switzerland
3. Gross v. Switzerland

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES(Books)
BOOKS
CONTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA;BY J.N.PANDEY, 54th EDITION, PUBLISHED BY
CENTRAL LAW AGENCY In The Year 2017.
CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES AND WRITS;BY D.D.BASU, 1st EDITION,
PUBLISHED BY LEXIS NEXIS In The Year 1994.
NANDY A. EUTHANSIA IN PRINCIPLES OF FORENSIC MEDICINE.
3rd ed. Kolkata: New central book agency (P) Ltd; 2009. p. 70.
MADHAV KHOSLA, BOTH THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONALISM.
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND INDIAN LAW, BRIJ
KISHORE SHARMA.
MAINTAINENCE AND WELFARE OF SENIOR CITIZENS ACT,2007.. BARE
ACT WITH SHORT COMMENTS… PROFESSIONAL BOOK PUBLISHERS.
INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN RIGHTS, DR.LALITA SHARMA.
DICTIONARY
BLACK LAW DICTIONARY;BY HENRY CAMPBELL,4th EDITION, PUBLISHED BY
WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY In The Year 1968.
DICTIONARY OF LEGAL TERMS; 5th Edition , Barron’s Educational Series, Inc.
English.(1 Nov 2015)

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES(Articles referred)
ARTICLES REFERRED
https://www.livelaw.in/breaking-right-die-dignity-fundamental-right-sc-allows-passive-
euthanasia-living-will-issues-guidelines/
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1056396/
http://medind.nic.in/jbc/t12/i1/jbct12i1p43.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3612319/
http://www.advocatekhoj.com/blogs/index.php?bid=8424fe94d205814a366812383&bcmd=V
IEW
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15462028
https://www.smilefoundationindia.org/child_rights.html
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Right-To-Live-Includes-Right-To-Die-With-
Dignity-A-Fundamental-Right-Supreme-Court-9014.asp
zeenews.india.com
nagpur article. medicaldialogues.in
www.hindustantimes.com

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES (Links referred)
DYNAMIC LINKS
 http://www.livelaw.in/
 https://indiankanoon.org/
 https://www.google.co.in
 http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/
 http://www.manupatra.com/
 https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/latest-judgments.html
 http://jbc.judiciary.gov.ph/masterlist/LEB.pdf
 http://journals.sagepub.com
 https://globalnews.ca/news
 https://www.debate.org/opinions
 https://www.hg.org/legal_articles.asp
 https://www.hg.org/elder-law.html
 www.telegraph.co.uk
 www.unicef.org
 www.humanium.org
 www.ohchr.org

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
CITIZENS UNION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS …..PETITIONER
v.
UNION OF SINDIYA …RESPONDENTS
THE COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER HAS INVOKED THE EPISTOLARY
JURISDICTION OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT BY THE WAY PUBLIC
INTEREST LITIGATION UNDER ARTICLE 39A1 OF CONSTITUTION OF SINDIYA.
THE RESPONDENTS MOST HUMBLY SUBMIT THEMSELVES TO THE
JURISDICTION OF HON’BLE COURT & SHALL BOUND BY ALL ORDERS,
DIRECTION THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY PASS IN EXERCISE OF THE
POWER CONFERRED IN ITS ENTIRETY & GOOD FAITH.
ALL OF WHICH IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
1. Article 39A in the Constitution of India 1950 :

The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing —
(a) that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood;
(b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to sub
serve the common good;
(c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of
production to the common detriment;
(d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women;
(e) that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and
that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength;
Subs. by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, s. 7, for cl. (f) (w.e.f. 3-1-1977):
[(f) that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of
freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and
material abandonment.]

STATEMENT OF FACTS
 Union of Sindiya is seventh largest populated country and most populous democracy in the
globe. The government of Union of Sindiya has based and run in the lines of Federal
Parliamentary Constitutional Democratic Republic model. In recent past the government of
Union of Sindiya has made several attempts to become one of the developed economies in
the world. The total GDP is estimated that 2.848 trillion Dollars which occupies the sixth
largest in the world. The government of Union of Sindiya governed under the Constitution
which adopted in 1950, which serves as the basic and supreme law of the land. The
constitution of Union of Sindiya follows the traditions of the liberal democratic model and
provides the equal powers between union and federal wings based on its constitutional
mandate.
 The judiciary of Union of Sindiya is most vibrant and it administers and follows a common
law legal system which was inherited from the British colonial regime. The Court’s system in
Union of Sindiya follows strict system of hierarchy. Supreme Court of Union of Sindiya is
the highest court in the country and followed by High Courts in each states. The Constitution
of Union of Sindiya provides a comprehensive list of Civil, Political, Economic, Social and
Cultural rights that aspired to provide to protect the basic fundamental rights of its citizens. In
order to fulfil these aspirations, Part III and Part IV of the Constitution enlists certain the
Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. These rights have been enforced
and implemented by the judiciary to the full extent and continued to progress in the positive
direction.
 On several occasions the judiciary has showed its concern by rendering decisions through
landmark judgments to facilitate and strengthen the fundamental rights with a view of
affording the citizens a better standard of living. The Supreme Court of Union of Sindiya has
become the champion and custodian of the rights of the people which are provided under the
Constitution. Even though the highest Court has showed its activism and played an important
role in realizing the goals of the Constitution, in some occasions it has restrained to deliver
the judgments up to expectations of the common individual citizens.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
 Nevertheless, on various occasions the Supreme Court has expanded and developed the
jurisprudence of Article 21 of the Constitution of Union of Sindiya to include most of the
rights which have not been provided under Part III. In recent past the Supreme Court of
Union of Sindiya has delivered its judgment on the issue relating to the Right to life with
human dignity which includes the smoothening of the process of dying in case of terminally
ill patient or a person in persistent vegetative state with no hope for recovery. The Court
observed “A failure to legally recognize advance medical directives may amount to non-
facilitation of the right to smoothen the dying process and the right to live with dignity.
Further, a study of the position in other jurisdictions shows that Advance Directives have
gained lawful recognition in several jurisdictions by way of legislation and in certain
countries through judicial pronouncements”. In the light of this ruling and direction by the
Supreme Court of Union of Sindiya, several petitions were filed by the people in various
High Courts of the State and seeking the judicial intervention to permit them to end their
lives.
 Some of the petitions and their back grounds are as follows:
a. In an incident, Mrs. Swagatha from the province of Coastal Pradesh had filed an application
seeking for permission from the High Court to end the life of her child who is suffering with
inherited blood disorder called Thalassemia. Mrs. Swagatha is working as a teaching
professional in one of the reputed central government institutions in Union of Sindiya. She
got married and blessed with a baby girl and the baby was born with good health. After three
months of birth the baby has developed some abnormal health conditions, when they
consulted the doctors they have advised her to consult the specialist to take expert advice.
Mrs. Swagatha consulted the famous doctors and they declared that the baby was born with
abnormal form of haemoglobin disorder which results in excessive destruction of red blood
cells which leads to anemia. Anemia is a condition in which the body does not have sufficient
normal red blood cells. Further the doctors have informed Mrs. Swagatha that her baby is
suffering with Thalassemia major which is caused either by a genetic mutation

STATEMENT OF FACTS
or a deletion of certain key gene fragments, which is inherited from either of the parents, and
the news shattered Mrs. Swagatha and her spouse. They spent all their savings to save the
child, but the disease is such that there is no cure except the regular blood transfusion under
the guidance of the expert doctors or bone marrow transplantation. Mrs. Swagatha and her
spouse could not afford to go for bone marrow transplantation, which is very expensive and
needs a donor who should be either sibling or close relative which they could not procure.
Mrs. Swagatha and her spouse decided that they cannot afford the treatment and went for
regular blood transfusion.
 The multiple blood transfusions for every four weeks left the patient (one year old baby) in
traumatic conditions. The blood transfusions resulted in overload of iron in the body which
has to be treated by Chelation therapy by medication through deferoxamine via daily
injections which makes long term use more difficult. Few months later the baby’s health
deteriorated, she developed the health complications due the over load of iron deposits which
was caused by the frequent blood transfusion. The treatment has affected the health of baby
adversely and she was admitted in intensive care unit of the hospital and doctors have advised
Mrs. Swagatha that the condition of the baby will remain critical and they cannot intervene
further except to prolong the treatment. The prolonged treatment caused severe trauma on the
health of Mrs. Swagatha and her spouse and also their finances. Further, the doctors have
advised that the chances of survival of the child are minimal. In such scenario, Mrs. Swagatha
and her spouse decided to smoothen the process to end the life of their child instead of giving
traumatic treatment. Mrs. Swagatha and her spouse decided to file an application for the
permission to end the life of their child. They were shattered by looking at the inhuman
condition of the child and decided to pave the way for her to leave this world in peace with
human dignity rather than prolonged suffering with inhuman conditions.
b. In the High Court of Deccan Land, which is one of the High Courts in the Union of Sindiya,
An application was filed by Mr. Guna Sankalpa seeking the judicial intervention to end his
life along with his spouse. Mr. Guna Sankalpa is a retired government employee of Union of
Sindiya and he has two daughters and a son who were married a decade ago.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
 Mr. Guna Sankalpa during his life time has earned properties and money which was
sufficient for their life. All these properties and money were given to their children. Mr. Guna
Sankalpa and his spouse are living solely by their retirement pension benefits and they were
neglected by their children. Unfortunately, both were suffering with chronic kidney disease
and their meagre pension is not supporting for their medical treatment and their living.
Having suffered with deterioration of health, they have approached the children to support
their medical treatment, but they have received ill-treatment from their children and became
destitute.
 The old couple did not find an alternative means and approached the local police to do some
justice to them. The Police official have given patient hearing and lodged a criminal
complaint against their children and summoned to the local police station. In the police
station, the station house officer gave counselling to the children but it proved to be a futile
exercise. Moreover, the children responded to the police that their parents have seen brighter
side of their life and they have reached the stage where there is no requirement for them to
spare rather waste money for their medical treatment. Having heard the response from their
children the couple attempted to commit suicide, but were saved by police and admitted to
the local hospital with deteriorating health conditions and humiliation. Further, they decided
that to seek help of the state to end their life with the judicial intervention and filed an
application to the High Court.
 Along with the above applications several other petitions were filed in various High Courts in
Union of Sindiya for seeking the judicial intervention to facilitate to end their life. These
incidents were reported in local newspapers. Responding to the news the Deccan Land based
NGO by the name “Citizens’ Union for Human Rights” filed a PIL in the Supreme Court of
Union of Sindiya.
 The case has been posted before this court on 6th September 2018 for argument.

ISSUES RAISED
1. WHETHER THERE IS A NEED FOR CONSIDERATION OF SETTLED LAW AND
GUIDELINES WITH RESPECT TO RIGHT TO END LIFE WITH HUMAN
DIGNITY ?
2. WHETHER THE PARENTS HAVE RIGHT TO SEEK THE STATE ASSISTANCE
TO END THE LIFE OF THEIR CHILD IF IN CASE ALL THE EFFORTS MADE BY
THEM HAVE FAILED TO SAVE THE LIFE OF THEIR CHILD, PARTICULARLY,
THE FAILURE OF THE STATE IN RECOGNISING ADVANCED MEDICAL
DIRECTIVES ?
3. WHETHER THE RIGHT OF THE CHILD TO LIVE INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO
DIE WITH HUMAN DIGNITY ?
4. WHETHER THE STATE IS UNDER THE OBLIGATION TO TAKE CARE OF THE
AGED INCASE OF THE FAILURE OF THEIR AND ALL OTHER ALTERNATIVES

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

DIGNITY ?
Right to life is recognized in numerous human rights documents, such as the :

European Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 2), European Convention on Human Rights
(Article 2), African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights (Article 4), American Convention
on Human Rights (Article 4), Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( Article 3 ),
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ( Article 6 ).
It is important to distinguish between treatment aimed at ending the patient’s life and medical
treatment around the life, and decisions that treatment would be disproportionately
burdensome to the patient, as death seems inevitable. Good care aims at ending patient’s
suffering, not their life.
2. WHETHER THE PARENTS HAVE RIGHT TO SEEK THE STATE ASSISTANCE

THE FAILURE OF THE STATE IN RECOGNISING ADVANCED MEDICAL
DIRECTIVES ?
Union of Sindiya feel that its role as a country is beyond the responsibility of parents, to
ensure that children have the possibility to develop in a healthy and normal fashion, under all
circumstances. Currently in most cities thalassaemia care centres have been established, both
in the private sector as well the Government hospitals. In May 2018, The LokSabha passed
the disability bill, which has expanded the scope to cover thalassaemia and sickle cell
patients.
In the instance which the petitioner had come up with there is no violation of any of their
fundamental rights and hence the petitioner do not have any right to seek the assistance of the
State to end the life of the child.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

The Preamble to the Declaration on the Rights of the Child recognizes that, "... the child by
reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including
appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth".
Euthanasia is undoubtedly illegal. Since in cases of euthanasia or mercy killing there is an

intention on the part of the doctor to kill the patient hence such cases would clearly fall under
the clause ‘firstly’ of Sec 300 of IPC, 1860 resulting the killing would amount to murder.
Right of the Child to live doesn’t include the Right to die with human dignity, it is
unconstitutional and unreasonable, as there exists clear violation of Art 21 (FR guaranteed
under Part – III) of the Sindiyan Constitution and also to the principles of International
convention on Rights of the Child.

AGED IN CASE OF FAILURE OF THEIR AND ALL OTHER ALTERNATIVES ?
Many cases has been noticed where the parents are left alone or left neglected in the old age
homes by their children. The people who once took care of every single need, whims and
fancies of their children have now been left alone in this world by their children. By seeing to
all these cases, the Government of Sindiya took a stand on behalf of the elders and made
provisions in the personal as well as secular laws.
Several Acts like Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 are in place to take care of the parents who are
aged. Various health care schemes like Pradan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana and CMRF where
Kidney transplantation also can be done has been implemented by the Govt. for the welfare
of the citizens. In such a scenario the petitioner has several other alternatives instead of death
and since the state is already fulfilling its obligation to take care of the aged it need not
entertain such pleas.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED (Issue-1)

DIGNITY ?
Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right to
life, liberty and security of person.” The Declaration is politically concretized by several
legally binding UN treaties: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (CRPD).
ICCPR doesn’t mention a “right to die,” and in Article 6 states that “Every human being has
the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily
deprived of his life.”
Similarly, Article 6 of CRC says that “every child has the inherent right to life.” Article 10 of
the CRPD is even more clear:
“States Parties reaffirm that every human being has the inherent right to life and shall take all
necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal
basis with others.”
Human Rights Committee formally condemned the Dutch euthanasia of infants sanctioned
under the “Groningen Protocol”: “The Committee is gravely concerned at reports that new-
born handicapped infants have had their lives ended by medical personnel.” The Committee
reiterates its previous recommendations in this regard and urges that this legislation be
reviewed in light of the Covenant’s recognition of the right to life.”
In the same manner right to life is recognized in numerous other human rights documents,
such as the :
European Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 2),
European Convention on Human Rights (Article 2),
African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights (Article 4), and
American Convention on Human Rights (Article 4).
Equally, none of these documents mentions a “right to die.”

In 1906, first euthanasia bill was drafted in Ohio, USA but it could not succeed. The worst
calamity in the name of euthanasia was created by Nazi regime. In October 1939 amid the
turmoil of the outbreak of war Hitler ordered widespread "mercy killing" of the sick and
disabled. Code named "Aktion T 4," the Nazi euthanasia program to eliminate "life unworthy
of life". It was first focused on newborns and very young children. The Nazi euthanasia
program quickly expanded to include older disabled children and adults. This so called mercy
killing destroyed more than 70,000 innocent lives.
In 1952, the Euthanasia Society of America petitioned the United Nations Human Rights
Commission to declare that people dying from an incurable disease have the right to die. The
United Nations did not grant the request, believing that its efforts to promote human rights
were best applied to matters regarding life, not death.
Under Article 2 of the Convention, the ECHR also considered the “right to die” in the case
of Sanles v. Spain, where the ECHR dismissed the application as inadmissible. The case was
later brought to the Human Rights Committee under the Optional First Protocol, where it was
again dismissed as inadmissible.
Similarly, judgement in the case Haas vs. Switzerland from 2011 clearly rejected the
claim to the “right to die”.
Union of Sindiya has one of the best constitutions of the world and yet continuing with the
Indian Penal Code, 200 year old legal document inherited from the British rulers. According
to the Indian Penal code, which was mainly adopted from British Penal Code, attempted
suicide was a crime. The debates on Euthanasia became a live issue when the Supreme Court
of India in 1994 passed a verdict that attempted suicide is not a crime. Sections 306 and 309
of the IPC, which relate to suicide, go against Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Article
21 grants the right to life, but that does not imply that one has a right to death.
In a case before the Supreme Court of India in Gain kaur v. State of Punjab 1996(2) SCC
648 (vide paragraphs 22 and23) the court held that the right to life guaranteed by Article 21
of the Constitution does not include the right to die.

Thus attempt to commit suicide is punishable under Sec309 of IPC 1860 and it was further
declared that it is not unconstitutional in Article 21 of the Sindiyan constitution. The reason
behind this was that the right to life is a natural and a fundamental right but right to die is not
a natural right.
Views against euthanasia can be summarized as
1) Humanitarian
2) Constitutional
3) Legal
4) Hippocrates Oath and
5) Religious.
The UN Parliamentary Assembly calls upon member states to provide in domestic law the
necessary legal and social protection against these specific dangers and fears which a
terminally ill or dying person may be faced with in domestic law, and in particular against :
 Dying exposed to unbearable symptoms (for example, pain, suffocation, etc.);
 Dying alone and neglected;
 Dying under the fear of being a social burden;
 Limitation of life-sustaining treatment due to economic reasons;
 Insufficient provision of funds and resources for adequate supportive care of the
terminally ill or dying.
Article 5 of the CRC states that Parties to the Convention shall respect the responsibilities,
rights and duties of parents or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a
manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and
guidance in the exercise by the rights of the child recognized in the present Convention.
Article 18(1) of CRC states that the Parties to the Convention shall use their best efforts to
ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the
upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians,
have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best
interests of the child will be their basic concern.

Article 6(1) states that the Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.
Article 6(2) states that the State Parties to the Convention shall ensure to the maximum extent
possible the survival and development of the child.
The transition to a more liberal morality is also demonstrated by the doctrine of ‘a margin of
appreciation’. This means that the state is allowed a certain measure of discretion on account
of the non-existence of consensus, with regard to what is necessary for the protection of
morality. With regard to euthanasia, a State needs to balance the protection of vulnerable
people (for example, the dying) with the protection of the right to freedom of others.
DENNIS C. VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK, v. TIMOTHY E. QUILL

Timothy Quill, MD, along with two other physicians and three gravely ill patients, challenged
the constitutionality of New York State’s ban on physician-assisted suicide. The plaintiffs
argued that New York’s ban violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, as the law allowed for patients to refuse life-sustaining treatment, but not for
them to receive assistance in suicide. The District Court ruled in favour of the State of New
York, and the Second Circuit reversed in favour of Dr. Quill. The Supreme Court, in a 9-0
ruling, upheld the constitutionality of New York’s ban on physician-assisted suicide.
It is important to distinguish between treatment aimed at ending the patient’s life and medical
treatment around the life, or between decisions aimed at ending the patient’s life (which are
non-medical) and decisions that treatment would be disproportionately burdensome to the
patient, as death seems inevitable. Good care aims at ending patient’s suffering, not their life.
Hence the counsel for the respondent humbly submits that there is no need for consideration
of settled law and guidelines with respect to right to end life with human dignity.

2. WHETHER THE PARENTS HAVE RIGHT TO SEEK THE STATE’S ASSISTANCE

THE FAILURE OF THE STATE IN RECOGNIZING ADVANCED MEDICAL
DIRECTIVES ?
In the current case the child is suffering with inherited blood disorder called Thalassemia.
Thalassemia (major) is an inherited autosomal recessive blood disorder which is caused by
excessive formation of a variety of haemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood
stream. This haemoglobin trait, HBA2, fails to carry as much oxygen as required and results
in acute anaemia among people.
Recently the Thalassemia and Sickle Cell Society (TSCS) located in the State of Telangana
started an awareness drive named ‘Mission 10 Million’ for Thalassemia affected children.
The drive is expected to reach 10 million people to create awareness about the disease and
also to raise funds for the treatment of existing patients.
The Union Health Ministry has initiated a project to provide treatment to 200 children
suffering from thalassaemia in the current financial year with Coal India funding it. For this
purpose, the government has identified four hospitals across the country where bone marrow
transplant along with post-surgery treatment will be carried out. The cost of the total
procedure is Rs 10 lakh and it will be borne by Coal India, a health ministry official said. The
four institutions which have identified are Tata Medical Centre in Kolkata, CMC Vellore,
Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute & Research Centre and AIIMS in New Delhi.
The project will benefit underprivileged thalassaemia patients who have a matched sibling
donor and are therefore eligible for bone marrow transplantation but do not have financial
resources for the same. “Initially, the project will be initiated at four centres and gradually it
may be extended to six more centres so that the waiting time for patients is reduced. Each
centre should have performed at least five bone marrow transplants in a year for thalassaemia
patients,”

Union of Sindiya feel that its role as a country is beyond the responsibility of parents, to
ensure that children have the possibility to develop in a healthy and normal fashion, under all
circumstances. Currently in most cities thalassaemia care centres have been established, both
in the private sector as well the Government hospitals. Paediatricians and pediatric
haematologists looking after these centres have sufficient training skills to manage these
cases.
A directory of treatment hospitals and centres in the Union of Sindiya for blood transfusions
and the management of beta thalassemia major.
S.No. Name of the State Name of the Name of the Hospital

City
1 Telangana Hyderabad Thalassemia and Sickle Cell Society
2 Delhi New Delhi Charak Palika Hospital
3 Gujarat Jamnagar Guru Gobind Singh Hospital
Rajkot Civil Hospital, Hospital Chowk , K T Children

Hospital, PDU Government Medical College, Shree
Jalaram Raghukul Sarvajanik Hospital.
4 Haryana Gurgaon Thalassaemia Centre,Paras Hospital
Rohtak Sunflag Hospital
5 Madhya Pradesh Indore Choithram Hospital &Research Center
6 Tamil Nadu Vellore Christian Medical College and Hospital (CMC

Vellore)
7 Karnataka Bengaluru Indira Gandhi Institute Of Child Health Hospital,

Narayana Health, Rotary TTK Blood Bank Medical
Services Trust (BMST), Samraksha Day Care
Centre for Thalassemia, Chamarajpet, St.John’s
Medical College Hospital.
Mangalore Kasturba Medical College,Attavar.

8 Kerala Kottayam Government Medical College, Kottayam.
Tellicherry Malabar Cancer Centre
Thrissur Thrissur Medical College
Trivandrum Government Medical College.
9 Maharashtra Mumbai Indian Red Cross Society at CST
Nagpur Indira Gandhi Government Medical College and

Hospital (GMCH), Puniyani Hospital
Pune Armed Forces Medical College and Command

Hospital, K.E.M Hospital, Red Cross Pune –
Thalassaemia Transfusion Unit.
10 Punjab Chandigarh Government Medical College and Hospital

(GMCH), Thalassaemia Children Welfare
Association at Post Graduate Institute of Medical
Education and Research (PGIMER)
Ludhiana Christian Medical College Ludhiana (CMC),

Dayanand Medical College &Hospital.
11 Rajasthan Jaipur Jay Kay Lon Mother &Child Hospital, Santokba

Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, Sawai Man Singh
Hospital.
Jodhpur Thalassemia Day Care Center, Umaid Hospital.
12 Uttar Pradesh Lucknow Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical

Sciences.
13 Orissa Baharampur Murshidabad Medical College and Hospital,

Thalassaemia Control Unit
14 West Bengal Kolkata Kothari Medical Center, Lions District 322 B

Blood Bank Transfusion Centre, Park Clinic.

In May 2018, The Lok Sabha passed the disability bill, which has expanded the scope to
cover thalassaemia and sickle cell patients. Dr. Vinky Rughwani, member of State Blood
Transfusion Council (SBTC), who also heads the Thalassaemia Society of India, tried
pursuing the issue through International Thalassaemia Federation, of which he is the Indian
representative who have played a major role in getting the bill planned and passed. The bill
was finally passed by the Rajya Sabha and two days later by the Lok Sabha. Dr Rughwani
said, “While the 1995 Act recognized seven disabilities, the new Bill covers 19 conditions —
including cerebral palsy, haemophilia, autism, thalassaemia and sickle cell.”
“Article 2 of CRC guarantees no right to die, whether with the assistance of a third party or
of the State; the right to life has no corresponding negative freedom.”
Article 3(1) of the CRC states that all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by
public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities
or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
Hence the action concerning the child must be to protect the interest of the child, but on the
contrary the parents seeking the assistance of the state to end the life of the child violates the
right to life of the child.
The case Gross vs. Switzerland from 2013 also failed to establish the “right to die” as a
privacy right under Article 8 of the Convention.
Euthanasia is an act of intentionally ending a life to end pain in the case of terminally ill
patients or those in a persistent vegetative state. Passive euthanasia - withdrawing life support
of patients in a persistent vegetative state - is, however, legal in India.
Some of the instances of euthanasia pleas:

Aruna Shanbaug was working as a nurse at Mumbai’s King Edward Memorial Hospital
(KEM). In 1973, she was strangled with a chain and sodomised by a sweeper. She remains in
coma for over 37 years and her case attracted wide public attention in India.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED (Issue - 2)
On behalf of Aruna, her friend Pinki Virani filed a petition arguing the “continued existence
of Aruna is in violation of her right to live in dignity”. But the top court in 2011 rejected the
plea and also issued a set of broad guidelines legalising passive euthanasia in India.
2003 - Sonali Mukherjee, Jharkhand : An acid attack victim in Dhanbad had pleaded for
euthanasia or medical support for her skin reconstructive surgery. Her pleas were rejected.
2008 - Dilip Machua, Jharkhand: Dilip Machua who was paralysed following an accident
in 2008 had pleaded for mercy killing. His plea was not granted, but Machua died later.
2008 - Jeet Narayan of Mirzapur in Uttar Pradesh : Jeet Narayan pleaded for euthanasia
for his four sons, Durgesh (22), Sarvesh (18), Brijesh (13) and Sushil (10) – for his four sons
who were all paralysed below the neck and were confined to bed. Narayan wrote to the
president of India, who later rejected his plea.
2013 - Dennis Kumar, Tamil Nadu : A porter, Dennis Kumar from Kanyakumari district
sought permission from the district collector to grant euthanasia for his infant son, who had
been suffering since birth from an unknown disorder. The plea was rejected by the court.
2017 - Mr Narayan and Mrs Iravati Lavate, Mumbai : An elderly couple from
Thakurdwar, near Charni Road, Mumbai, wrote to President’s office, seeking permission for
‘active euthanasia”. The fear of falling terminally ill and of not being able to contribute to the
society made them write to President seeking permission of mercy killing.
2018 - Anamika Mishra, UP - Shashi Mishra hailing from Kanpur in Uttar Pradesh, have
written letters to the President with their plea seeking euthanasia for her daughter Anamika
Mishra who is suffering from Muscular Dystrophy Disease. The plea was rejected.
In all the above cases we can clearly see a common scenario where in the plea of the
petitioner was rejected because none of them could show a violation of any of their
fundamental rights.
The same is applicable to the current case in issue. In both the instances which the petitioner
had come up with there is no violation of any of their fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court on March 7, 2011, ruled out active euthanasia -- the administration of a
lethal injection to end lives of terminally ill patients. The court permitted only passive
euthanasia for patients who were either brain dead, or were in a persistent vegetative state or
were supported entirely through a ventilator or any artificial life support.
At this point of time it can be well commented that Supreme Court has proceeded along the
predictable lines as the rest of the world. History of Mankind has taught us euthanasia could
be grossly misused as we have seen with Hitler, destroying more than 70,000 innocent lives.
Judiciary as responsible as Supreme Court of India and Constitution of India gives highest
value to Life and Democracy.
Applying this guide line on Passive Ethunasia to the current case, it does not comply with any
of the above mentioned points prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and not forgetting
the dictum ‘We cannot add life to this world, so we have no right to take away any life’.
Based on the above submissions the Counsel for the Respondent humbly submits to this
Hon’ble Moot Court that the parent’s do not have any right to seek the assistance of the State
to end the life of the child.


It is most deferentially put forth before this venerated bench that the Right of the Child to live
doesn’t include the Right to die with human dignity, it is unconstitutional and unreasonable,
as there exists clear violation of Art 21 (FR guaranteed under Part – III) of the Sindiyan
Constitution and also to the principles of International convention on Rights of the Child.
The Children’s Rights – International Perspective :
Children have the fundamental right to life, survival and development to the maximum extent
possible. This is set out in Article 6 of International Convention on the Rights of the Child,
one of the guiding principles of the Convention.
Among rights of the child, the right to life is the basis of other rights.
The Preamble to the Declaration on the Rights of the Child recognizes that, "... the child by
reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including
appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth".
For children, the right to life is the chance to be able to live and have the possibility to grow,
to develop and become adults. This right comprises two essential aspects: the right to have
one’s life protected from birth and the right to be able to survive and develop appropriately.
The right to life is a universally recognized right for all human beings. It is a fundamental
right which governs all other existing rights. In its absence, all other fundamental rights have
no reason to exist.
Article 16 states that No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his
or her privacy.
Article 18(1) of CRC states that the Parties to the Convention shall use their best efforts to
ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the

upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians,
have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best
interests of the child will be their basic concern.
Governments should recognise and ensure these rights. The right to health for children is
enshrined in Article 24 of CRC. For terminally ill-children the right to health has a great
value and should be seen in relation to the best interests of the child (Article 3 CRC), the
right to be heard (Article 12 CRC), and the principle of non-discrimination (Article 2 CRC).
When it comes to health care decisions, the Committee on the Rights of the Child states
in General Comment No. 4 on adolescent health and development and General Comment
No.12 on children’s rights to be heard, that children ‘must have the opportunity to participate
in decisions affecting their health and it ensures to receive counselling and to negotiate the
health-behaviour choices they make’. For children who have the capacity to make decisions
about their health care, the respect of their views may be decisive in how they should be
treated.
Thus, it is evident that Right to die is against Art 2, 3, 6, 12, 24 of guiding principles of
International Convention on Rights of Child (CRC).
Constitutional and Legal Perspective of Euthanasia :
Right to Life (Art 21) of Sindiyan Constitution:
The sanctity of life has been placed on the highest pedestal, Art 21 which is regarded as the
HEART of the FR’s. The constitution of India not only guarantees the right to live but also
provides that state should provide health care to all citizens.
The Supreme Court of India in its land mark judgment in Pt. Parmanand Katara vs. UOI
ruled that every doctor whether at a government hospital or otherwise has the professional
obligation to extend his services with due expertise for protecting life.

Legal Denial of Right to Die In Sindiya:
The law treats every attempt to take life, either of oneself or of another a punishable offence
under the Indian Penal Code.
Any assistance or abetment rendered is also a punishable offence. Furthermore, concealing

information about such an attempt is also an offence. In India abetment of suicide and attempt
to suicide are both criminal offences. In 1994, constitutional validity of Indian Penal Code
Section (IPC Sec) 309 was challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court declared
that IPC Sec 309 is unconstitutional, under Article 21 (Right to Life) of the constitution in a
landmark judgement.
In 1996, an interesting case of abetment of commission of suicide (IPC Sec 306) came to
Supreme Court. The accused were convicted in the trial court and later the conviction was
upheld by the High Court. They appealed to the Supreme Court and contended that ‘right to
die’ be included in Article 21 of the Constitution and any person abetting the commission of
suicide by anyone is merely assisting in the enforcement of the fundamental right under
Article 21; hence their punishment is violation of Article 21. This made the Supreme Court to
rethink and to reconsider the decision of right to die. Immediately the matter was referred to a
Constitution Bench of the Indian Supreme Court. The Court held that the right to life under
Article 21 of the Constitution does not include the right to die.
In the present context, the following legal provisions are important:
Culpable Homicide (U/Sec299 IPC, 1860) – As Sec 299, Euthanasia is undoubtedly illegal.
Since in cases of euthanasia or mercy killing there is an intention on the part of the doctor to
kill the patient hence such cases would clearly fall under the clause ‘firstly’ of Sec 300 of
IPC, 1860 resulting the killing would amount to murder.
Sec 92 IPC, 1860 - It is important to note that in euthanasia there is intentional causing of
death whether with or without the patient’s consent so the protection of Section 92 whose
very basis stands on “good faith” is contradictory to the concept of Euthanasia rendering no
legal protection to the mercy killer.

In India, the concept of consent has not been extended beyond examination and treatment out
of ethical, cultural, social and legal considerations. In addition, the professional aim of
alleviation of pain and suffering has not been stretched to include participation in the
destruction of an individual under any circumstances. The intent to kill qualifies euthanasia as
a crime under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A physician who practises euthanasia would be
charged under Section 299 or Section 304- A, depending on the method used.
In the present case, Child is under 18 and not competent to give his consent.
Sec 107 & Sec 202 IPC, 1860 - All people including relatives who participated or were
aware of such intent or having the intention could be charged under Section 107 (Abetment
of a thing) and Section 202 of Indian Penal Code and in cases where the entire process is
undertaken at their behest, relatives could be charged under Section 299 or 304 as well.
Here in case on hand, Parents are aware having the intention to smoothen death, and hence
they can be charged under IPC.
In P. Rathinam v. Union of India, it was held by the Apex court that euthanasia revolves the
intervention of a third person, it would indirectly amount to a person aiding or abetting the
killing of another.
In Naresh Marotrao Sakhre v. Union of India Lodha J. affirmed that “euthanasia or mercy
killing is nothing but homicide whatever the circumstances in which it is affected.”
The SC constitutional bench in a landmark judgment Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, the issue
raised in this famous case was whether Right to die can be interpreted within the ambit of
Right to Life under Art 21 of the constitution.
The Apex Court answered this question negatively and held that right to life can only be
enjoyed in its positive sense. If right to die will be allowed it would amount to abolishing the
effect of the right to life itself.
Also said, Art 21 is meant for the protection and care of the people living in India, guarantee
has been ensured by the constitution with regard to same. But putting an end to a life cannot

be included within the ambit of such a provision howsoever may be the broader interpretation
given to the Article 21.
The natural span of life is not allowed to be curtailed and right to die with dignity is not
available.
Thus after Gian kaur case legal picture reveals that there is no fundamental right to die and
that the right to life in article 21 does not include right to commit suicide.
Hence, in light of the above cited judgements, the counsel for the petitioners most humbly
submit before this Hon’ble Court that Right of the Child to live doesn’t include the Right to
die with human dignity.


AGED INCASE OF THE FAILURE OF THEIR AND ALL OTHER
ALTERNATIVES?
Many cases has been noticed where the parents are left alone or left neglected in the old age
homes by their children. The people who once took care of every single need, whims and
fancies of their children have now been left alone in this world by their children. By seeing to
all these cases, the Government of Sindiya took a stand on behalf of the elders and made
provisions in the personal as well as secular laws.
As per Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, it is a legal
obligation for children and heirs to provide maintenance to senior citizens and parents, by
monthly allowance. (Rs.10,000/- is max per current limit, though 15% of earnings after tax or
10k whichever is more would be a more meaningful number).
Children- include Son, daughter, grandson, and granddaughter but do not include a minor.
The definition of “children” has been expanded to include daughter-in-law and son-in-law.
This means that so far a daughter, son, grandson or grand daughter was responsible for the
care of a senior citizen. But now, even daughter-in-law, son-in-law, a minor through a
guardian or a relative of a childless elderly would be held responsible for their care.
In this case Mr. Guna Sankalpa during his life time has earned properties and money which
was sufficient for their life. Mr. Guna sankalpa having two daughters and a son transferred all
his properties to their children and were not able to meet the medical requirements. Moreover
being a retired government employee he was also receiving retirement benefits.
Unfortunately, when they were suffering from chronic kidney disease the children had
neglected them and ill treated them. This is mere negligence on the part of the children and
they can be made liable to pay maintenance to their parents according to Sec.4 of the
Maintenance and Welfare of senior citizens Act.
Sec 4(2) of the Act - The obligation of the children or relative, as the case may be, to
maintain a senior citizen extends to the needs of such citizen so that senior citizen may lead a
normal life.

Sec 4(3) of the Act - The obligation of the children to maintain his or her parent extends to
the needs of such parent either father or mother or both, as the case may be, so that such
parent may lead a normal life.
Sec 4(4) of the Act - Any person being a relative of a senior citizen and having sufficient
means shall maintain such senior citizen provided he is in possession of the property of such
senior citizen or he would inherit the property of such senior citizen:
Provided that where more than one relatives are entitled to inherit the property of a senior
citizen, the maintenance shall be payable by such relative in the proportion in which they
would inherit his property.
In this case already the 3 legal heirs of Guna Sankalpa have inherited the property and the
Act clearly states that they are liable to take care of their aged parents.
Sec 5(1)(a) of the Act makes it clear that an application for maintenance under section 4,
may be made - by a senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be.
Sec 9(1) of the Act deals with the Order for maintenance. If children or relatives, as the
case may be, neglect or refuse to maintain a senior citizen being unable to maintain himself,
the Tribunal may, on being satisfied of such neglect or refusal, order such children or
relatives to make a monthly allowance at such monthly rate for the maintenance of such
senior citizen, as the Tribunal may deem fit and to pay the same to such senior citizen as the
Tribunal may, from time to time, direct.
Sec 5(8) of the Act states that, if children or relative so ordered fail, without sufficient cause
to comply with the order, any such Tribunal may, for every breach of the order, issue a
warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may
sentence such person for the whole, or any part of each month’s allowance for the
maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, remaining unpaid after the
execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until
payment if sooner made whichever is earlier.
Under Section 24 of the Act , if anybody who has responsibility for the care or protection of
a senior citizen leaves him/her in any place, with the intention of wholly abandoning him/her,

such person shall be punishable under the Act with imprisonment of either three months or
fine up to Rs. 5,000 or both. The offence would be cognizable and will be tried by a
Magistrate.
The goal of all these provisions is to provide safety and security to the elderly citizens of the
country. They should be financially assisted so that they live with dignity.
These laws made it mandatory for the children to maintain their parents. Both the son
daughter are under this obligation. Earlier, it was not legal obligation but a moral one. But
due to the various circumstance like increasing old age home and other welfare schemes for
the aged, the government made various laws to protect the elder section of the country. This
shows the obligation on the part of the state was fulfilled by making laws and finally it is the
duty of the children to look after the parents.
Sec 20(3) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 clearly states that - The
obligation of a person to maintain his or her aged or infirm parent extends in so far as the
parent is unable to maintain himself or herself out of his or her own earnings or other
property.
Muslims are given maintenance as per the provisions of the Shia law.
Parsi and Christians seek maintenance through the criminal procedure code. i.e. 125 Cr.p.c.
STATE OBLIGATION :
Pradan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojna
Health Protection Scheme – Under this scheme, the government will provide life coverage
upto 1 lakh per family and for citizens above the age of 60 years an additional financial
assistance of Rs. 30,000 for medical facilities and treatments.
Jan Aushadi Yojana - Under this scheme, the government will provide generic and special
medicines for the needy people especially in rural and semi-urban areas. People can buy
medicines from these stores at a much lower rate.

National Dialysis Program - The NDP has been started to provide enough financial
assistance to the hospitals and medical centres in remote areas to start dialysis process for
patients who are in need of it. The ministry will provide the equipments and latest
infrastructure to the district hospitals. Under this program, the people suffering from kidney
diseases will get dialysis process in the nearest district hospitals. They don’t need to run from
one place to another for treatment; it will be hospital’s responsibility to register under
program, request for funding, collect funds and start the process on time.
Various other Schemes by Govt for Senior Citizens :
Varishta Mediclaim policy by government is made specifically for the senior citizens
between the age of 60 and 80 years to meet the requirements of a senior citizen health
insurance scheme. Cost of medicines, drugs, blood, oxygen, diagnosis charges etc. is covered
along with treatment of critical medical problems like benign prostatic hyperplasia, and
organ transplant etc. are covered. Coverage for illnesses like cancer, multiple sclerosis,
stroke etc. is provided even without hospitalization.
Chief Minister's Relief Fund (CMRF) being implemented in various States in the Union of
Sindiya provides relief for the distressed people affected by major natural calamities etc. It
also provides relief to the needy individuals for their treatment of major diseases like Cancer,
Cardiac surgery, Kidney transplant, Brain Tumour, Liver and Multi Organ failure etc., to
the needy people who are under Below Poverty Line families.
The Ministry of Health & Family Welfare had launched the ‘National Programme for the
Health Care of Elderly’ (NPHCE) during 2010-11 to address various health related
problems of elderly people. The health care facilities, being provided under this program, are
either free or highly subsidised.
A program named Integrated Program for Older Persons (IPOP) is run by The Ministry of
Social Justice and Empowerment. Under this program, grants are given for running and
maintenance Old Age Homes, Day Care Centres, Mobile Medicare Units, Multi Facility Care
Centre for Older Widows etc. The main objective of the Scheme is to improve the quality of
life of Older Persons by providing basic amenities like shelter, food, medical care and
entertainment opportunities etc. In the year 2016-17, a total of 396 old age homes were given

grants under this scheme. The total grant amount was Rs 36.99 crore covering a total of
40200 beneficiaries.
Another scheme Rashtriya Vayoshri Yojana (RVY) is also run by the same Ministry for the
welfare of Senior citizens. The estimated outlay of the Scheme is Rs. 483.6 crore up to 2019-
20. The Scheme will be implemented in 260 districts and benefit 5,20,000 beneficiaries up to
2019-20.
Hence by considering all the above submissions the Counsel for the Respondent humbly
submits to this Hon’ble Court that the petitioner has several other alternatives instead of death
and since the state is already fulfilling its obligation to take care of the aged it need not
entertain such pleas.

PRAYER
Therefore, in the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced, Authorities Cited & relied
upon the Petitioner’s submission before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Karnataka, it may be
graciously pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1. THERE IS NO NEED FOR CONSIDERATION OF SETTLED LAW AND

DIGNITY.
2. THE PARENTS HAVE NO RIGHT TO SEEK THE STATE ASSISTANCE TO END

THE LIFE OF THEIR CHILD.
3. THE RIGHT OF THE CHILD TO LIVE DOES NOT INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO
DIE WITH HUMAN DIGNITY.
4. THE STATE IS ALREADY FULFILLING ITS OBLIGATION TO TAKE CARE OF
THE AGED AND HENCE DOES NOT HAVE ANY NEW OBLIGATION.
MISCELLANEOUS
Any other order as it deems fit in the interest of justice, equity & good conscience.
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, RESPONDENT’S
SHALL DUTY BOUND FOREVER PRAY.
s/d
Counsel for Respondents

Mercy Killing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mercy Killing

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

Mercy Killing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PENDEKANTI VENKATASUBBAIAH MEMORIAL

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2018

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ……………………………………………………………….2

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

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION …………………………………………………….....9

STATEMENT OF FACTS ………………………………………………………………...10

ISSUES RAISED …………………………………………………………………………...14

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS …………………………………………………………..15

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ……………………………………………………………….17

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 1

PACE Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

UNCRC United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the

AIR All India report

ECHR European Court of Human Rights

CPC Code of Civil Procedure

CWC Child Welfare Committee

DPSP Directive Principles of State Policy

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 2

NASUAD National Association of States United for

Aging and Disabilities

NIA National Institute on Aging

UOI Union of India

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reports

H.C High court

PIL Public Interest Litigation

NGO Non Government Organisation

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 3

1. The Constitution of India.

2. Universal declaration of human rights.

3. International covenant on civil and political rights.

4. Maintenance and welfare of parents & senior citizens Act 2007.

5. International Convention on the Rights of the Child.

6. Indian Penal Code, 1860.

7. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

8. European Charter of Fundamental Rights.

9. European Convention on Human Rights.

10. African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights.

11. American Convention on Human Rights.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES (Judicial Pronouncements)

1. Pt. Parmanand Katara v. UOI

2. P. Rathinam v. Union of India,

3. Naresh Marotrao Sakhre v. Union of India

4. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab

5. Case of Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug

6. Case of Sonali Mukherjee, Jharkhand

7. Case of Dilip Machua, Jharkhand

8. Case of Jeet Narayan of Mirzapur in Uttar Pradesh

9. Case of Dennis Kumar, Tamil Nadu

10. Case of Mr Narayan and Mrs Iravati Lavate, Mumbai

11. Case of Anamika Mishra, UP

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 5

CONTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA;BY J.N.PANDEY, 54th EDITION, PUBLISHED BY

CENTRAL LAW AGENCY In The Year 2017.

CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES AND WRITS;BY D.D.BASU, 1st EDITION,

PUBLISHED BY LEXIS NEXIS In The Year 1994.

NANDY A. EUTHANSIA IN PRINCIPLES OF FORENSIC MEDICINE.