TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS ……………………………………………………………..

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

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

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

STATEMENT OF ISSUES.........................................................................................................

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

I. WHETHER THE PETITION PLACED BEFORE THE COURT IS

MAINTAINABLE?
II. THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ART. 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF URESSIA

[II.A]Whether there is a violation of fundamental rights?

III. WHETHER THE PRIEST IS PREDISPOSED OF THE GROSS VIOLATION

OF MRS. MUFFIN’S HUMAN RIGHT TO ‘DIE WITH DIGNITY’?

[III.A]Whether the reason specified by the priest was discriminatory in nature

and also arbitrary so as violate the equality guaranteed by the Art. 14 of the
Constitution of Uressia?

[III.B]Whether any person not devising natural death should be considered as

committing a sin?
IV. WHETHER THE ART 21 OF CONSTITUTION OF URESSIA ‘PROTECTION
OF LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY’ CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE ‘RIGHT
TO DIE’ OR TO TERMINATE ONE’S OWN LIFE?

1
 V. WHETHER THE ‘LIVING WILL’ PRIMED BY MRS. MUFFIN HOLD
LEGAL SUBSISTENCE?
VI. WHETHER THE CONCEPT OF DIGNITY BE CONSTRUED WITHIN THE
AMBIT OF ART. 25 AND ART. 26 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF URESSIA?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………………………

I. WHETHER THE PETITION PLACED BEFORE THE COURT IS

MAINTAINABLE?
II. THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ART. 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF URESSIA

[II.A]Whether there is a violation of fundamental rights?

III. WHETHER THE PRIEST IS PREDISPOSED OF THE GROSS VIOLATION

OF MRS. MUFFIN’S HUMAN RIGHT TO ‘DIE WITH DIGNITY’?

[III.A]Whether the reason specified by the priest was discriminatory in nature

and also arbitrary so as violate the equality guaranteed by the Art. 14 of the
Constitution of Uressia?

[III.B]Whether any person not devising natural death should be considered as

committing a sin?
IV. WHETHER THE ART 21 OF CONSTITUTION OF URESSIA ‘PROTECTION
OF LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY’ CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE ‘RIGHT
TO DIE’ OR TO TERMINATE ONE’S OWN LIFE
V. WHETHER THE ‘LIVING WILL’ PRIMED BY MRS. MUFFIN HOLD
LEGAL SUBSISTENCE?
VI. WHETHER THE CONCEPT OF ‘DIGNITY’ BE CONSTRUED WITHIN THE
AMBIT OF ART. 25 AND ART. 26 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF URESSIA?

PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………

2
 INDEX OF ABBREVIATION

ABBREVIATIONS WORDS
& And

§ Section

§§ Sections

¶ Paragraph
Art. Article
A.I.R All India Reporter

Anr. Another
Ed. Edition

HC High Court
S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases
S.C.R. Supreme Court Records

SC Supreme Court

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

PRECEDENTS:
 Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Ors( AIR 1987 SCC 748)
 A S Narayan vs State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1996 SC 1765)
 Rati lal Gandhi vs State of Bombay (AIR 1954 SC 1035)
 N. Adithayan vs The Travancore Devaswom board and others ( AIR 2002 CIVIL
6965)
 S.P. Mittal Etc vs Union of India and Others (AIR 1983 SCR (1) 729)
 Hon’ble shri Rangnath Mishra vs Union of India (JT 2003 (7) SC 206)
 Ramesh vs Union of India ((1988) 1 SCC 668)

BOOKS

 D.D. BASU, HUMAN RIGHTS IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (Prentice-Hall of India,

2nd ed., 2005)
 H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (Universal Law Publishing Co.,
4th ed. 2010).
 D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (Lexis Nexis
Butterworths, 9th ed. 2015).
 M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa,
6th ed., 2010).

STATUTE/ TREATY
 The Constitution of India, 1950

RULES & REPORTS

 International Report of World Medical Association

4
 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

 Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee
 European Charter of Fundamental Rights
 American Convention on Human Rights
 International Declaration on World Medical Association
 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

DATABASES REFERRED

www.manupatra.com

www.scconline.com

www.westlawindia.com

www.lexisnexis.com

5
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellants humbly submits this Memorandum for applicants filed before this Honorable

High Court in pursuit of legal justice. The application invokes its jurisdiction under Article 32 of

the Constitution of India, 1950. It sets forth the facts and the laws on which the claims are based.

6
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

PART I

In the southern part of the earth, in North west side there is a country known as URESSIA. It is a
pluralistic country having various type of religious and traditions. URESSIA has got its
independence in 1935 and they adopted their constitution on April 15, 1942.

PART II

In URESSIA the people are highly religious and they follow SUBRIC religious. The people of
SUBRIC religious very staunch and adamant regarding their culture and tradition. The SUBRIC
religious is having two communities i.e. Hsia and Kais.

PART III

Hsia group are the follower of monotheism and they worship only the holy-book of the Hsia
community, whereas Kais, who are the believers of polytheism, worship all living beings from
unicellular to multicellular organisms.

PART IV

The Hsia and Kais community people are acquainted of celebrating the NILGO festival in the
winter season, in which both the community i.e. Hsia and Kais are to worship their god
according to their own culture and practices.

PART V

The Kais communities people have a practice to take donate one organ of the body from those
people who acquire natural death. Kais community discard the donation of an organ who go for
unnatural death, because it is been told that “We should not despair of the eternal salvation of
person who have taken their own lives”.

PART VI

7
The organ taken from Kais community is treated as a donated organ and it is kept under the
supervision of a proper authority under NATIONAL ORGAN DONATING AUTHORITY
(NODA). NODA supplies the organ to the needed person of the community, and the people of
Kais community get great respect due to this practice in the entire country.

PART VII

The constitution of URESSIA has given the freedom of religious for its practice, profession,
conscience and propagation. Even these people have right to have religious affairs, morality and
health. These rights are recognized as fundamental rights under the constitution of URESSIA.

PART VIII

Mr. Flake and Mrs. Muffin are Kais by religious and they are living in URESSIA in UMRAV
district of State of SEBIYA. Both are having the Citizenship of URESSIA. Mr. Flake and Mrs.
Muffin got married since 2015 and live together in the same house in UMRAV district of State
of SEBIYA.

PART IX

Mr. Flake and Mrs. Muffin were staunch towards their religious and followed that culture. Mr.
Flake and Mrs. Muffin family had gone for organ donation after their natural death.

PART X

Mr. Flake and Mrs. Muffin were desirous to have a child and for this, they went through to
concerned doctor, Mrs. Nizso. Mrs. Nizso has given the consent they are fit to have the baby
through normal process.

PART XI

Mrs. Muffin was 29 when she conceived the child. During her pregnancy, she has been taking all
the precautions. On 16th march 2017, she complete three months of her pregnancy, and on that
day in the afternoon she fainted and fell down, Mrs. Muffin was sent for observation to Mrs.
Nizso in her clinic, and she told that it was due to weakness. After the completion of forth
month, she went for the regular check-up along with another issue that she is facing the severe
headaches time and again. She was advised by her doctor to go through the proper diagnosis of

8
the same. Mrs. Muffin went through so many required test and diagnosis with the malignant
brain tumor. Not much time was left with her to survive. She could have prolonged her life
through full radiation treatment, but it was not possible because of pregnancy.so, looking at the
possibilities of a slow death terrific headaches, seizures, and memory loss, she close to move to
her parents’ residential place so that she could get some time to stay with her parents.

PART XII

On 29th September 2017 she gave birth to the child in pisovi hospital at 3:00 P.M. in UMRAV
district. The child was born normally but he was unable to open his eyes for one month and
doctor were unable to find out the exact cause of it in spite of so many check-ups. For this, Mrs.
Muffin consulted the specialist doctor and after long treatment, it was diagnosed that the child is
suffering with ESTHESIONEUROBLASTOMA, a rare form of cancer that hits the nasal cavity.
This type of cancer spreads through the face, and it disfigures the face of victims. In this disease,
victims get blind and it make the victim without sense of smell or taste. Finally, the cancer gets
into the brain and kill the victims.

PART XII

Mrs. Muffin knew the cancer would kill her child over the course of years in a very painful and
monstrous way and it will not allow him even to endeavor out in public due to disfigurement of
the face. His defacement will be quite profound, people will stare, and children will run in fear.

PART XIII

Mrs. Muffin has decided that she and on behalf of his son, has written a living will through
which she can choose to not opt for medical treatment in malignant brain tumor for herself and
for his son who is suffering from ESTHESIONEUROBLASTOMA. In living will document she
had also asked for donation of the organ which is done by the Kais community.

PART XIV

The priest of KAIS COMMUNITY TRUST ORGANISATION which is controlled and financed
by GOVERNMENT OF URESSIA, and has substantial control over its management, has
discarded to take the donation of organ from Mrs. Muffin and her son, the reason which has
been stated by the priest was that Mrs. Muffin and her son are not having natural death, which is

9
not according to their culture, which means the unnatural death is like suicide and it is self-
murder, and so anyone who commits it is sin and it is the same as if the person has murdered
another human being.

PART XV

Mrs. Muffin approached the UFFRA NGO and filed a complaint of gross violation of her human
rights by the priest to die with dignity. The fact finding committee of the UFFRA NGO found the
following facts that prolonging Mrs. Muffin and her son on life support system against his will
could amount to torture of the patient and be financially draining for her family and their dignity.

PART XVI

By seeing the above facts, the UFFRA NGO has moved to the Supreme Court of India of
URESSIA.

10
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I. WHETHER THE PETITION PLACED BEFORE THE COURT IS

MAINTAINABLE?
II. THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ART. 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF URESSIA

[II.A]Whether there is a violation of fundamental rights?

III. WHETHER THE PRIEST IS PREDISPOSED OF THE GROSS VIOLATION

OF MRS. MUFFIN’S HUMAN RIGHT TO ‘DIE WITH DIGNITY’?

[III.A]Whether the reason specified by the priest was discriminatory in nature

and also arbitrary so as violate the equality guaranteed by the Art. 14 of the
Constitution of Uressia?

[III.B]Whether any person not devising natural death should be considered as

committing a sin?
IV. WHETHER THE ART 21 OF CONSTITUTION OF URESSIA ‘PROTECTION
OF LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY’ CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE ‘RIGHT
TO DIE’ OR TO TERMINATE ONE’S OWN LIFE
V. WHETHER THE ‘LIVING WILL’ PRIMED BY MRS. MUFFIN HOLD
LEGAL SUBSISTENCE?
VI. WHETHER THE CONCEPT OF ‘DIGNITY’ BE CONSTRUED WITHIN THE
AMBIT OF ART. 25 AND ART. 26 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF URESSIA?

11
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I.

WHETHER THE PETITION PLACED BEFORE THE COURT IS MAINTAINABLE?

The counsel of respondent modestly succumbs that the petition brought in the Honorable Court
in the form of ‘PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION’ by the UFFRA NGO is not maintainable as
it seems to just attract the attention of the Community and has been a ‘public stunt’ rather a
‘bluff’ at large.

II.

THE PETITIONER FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ART. 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF URESSIA

The counsels on behalf of the respondent humbly submits that the complaint filed under Art. 32
is brought before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (hereinafter referred as ‘SC’) has no such
legal validation. When there has been no violation of any fundamental right, to file under Art. 32
of the Constitution of Uressia.

[II.A]Whether there is a violation of fundamental rights?

The counsels on behalf of the respondent humbly submits even though Part III of the
Constitution of Uressia, enlists some basic rights which are available to individuals which
encompasses Art. 14 and Art. 21, but along with which certain religious rights under Art 25 and
Art 26 of the Constitution of Uressia has been accumulated.

III.

WHETHER THE PRIEST IS PREDISPOSED FOR THE GROSS VIOLATION OF MRS.

MUFFIN’S HUMAN RIGHT TO ‘DIE WITH DIGNITY’?

The counsel entreaties on behalf of the respondent that the priest of KAIS COMMUNITY
TRUST ORGANISATION which is controlled and financed by GOVERNMENT OF URESSIA

12
has not been vulnerable to the gross desecration of Mrs. Muffin’s human right to ‘die with
dignity’.

[III.A]Whether the reason specified by the priest was discriminatory in nature

and also arbitrary so as violate the equality guaranteed by the Art. 14 of the
Constitution of Uressia?

The counsel docilely complies to the facts which etches that ‘The priest of KAIS COMMUNITY
TRUST ORGANISATION which is controlled and financed by GOVERNMENT OF URESSIA,
and has substantial control over its management, has discarded to take the donation of organ
from Mrs. Muffin and her son, the reason which has been stated by the priest was that Mrs.
Muffin and her son are not having natural death, which is not according to their culture, which
means the unnatural death is like suicide and it is self-murder, and so anyone who commits it is
sin and it is the same as if the person has murdered another human being.’ where the reason
specified by the priest has been projecting the belief the religion. As a priest is always regarded
as the ‘chief’ or the ‘protector’ of the religion.

The counsel appeals that such reason stated by the priest was religious in nature wherein when
the pronouncement has been self-decisive on the part of Mrs. Muffin but has been against the
religious belief of the Kais Community and also stands no arbitrary in nature so as to violate
‘equality’ guaranteed by the Art. 14 of the Constitution of Uressia.

[III.B]Whether any person not devising natural death should be considered as

committing a sin?

The counsel unpretentiously puts forth that the priest’s verdict said ‘unnatural death is like
suicide and it is self-murder, and so anyone who commits it is sin and it is the same as if the
person has murdered another human being’1 and summons that such pronouncements have been
made under religious grounds and belief of their community.

IV.

13
 WHETHER THE ART 21 OF CONSTITUTION OF URESSIA ‘PROTECTION OF
LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY’ CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE ‘RIGHT TO DIE’
OR TO TERMINATE ONE’S OWN LIFE?

The counsel self-effacingly prays that Art. 21 of constitution of Uressia ‘protection of life and
personal liberty’ should be not construed to include ‘right to die’ or to terminate one’s own life
in its domain.

V.

WHETHER THE ‘LIVING WILL’ PRIMED BY MRS. MUFFIN HOLD LEGAL

SUBSISTENCE?

The counsel on behalf of the respondent would like to embrace the ‘living will’ primed by Mrs.
Muffin holding no legal subsistence. As enshrined, “Mrs. Muffin has decided that she and on
behalf of his son, has written a living will through which she can choose to not opt for medical
treatment in malignant brain tumor for herself and for his son who is suffering from
ESTHESIONEUROBLASTOMA. In living will document she had also asked for donation of the
organ which is done by the Kais community.”2

VI.

WHETHER THE CONCEPT OF DIGNITY SHALL BE CONSTRUED WITHIN THE

AMBIT OF ART. 25 AND ART. 26 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF URESSIA?

The counsel on behalf of the respondent appeals that the concept of ‘dignity’ shall not be
construed within the domain of Art. 25 and Art. 26 of the constitution of Uressia. As Art. 25 and
Art. 26 of the Constitution of Uressia revolves around ‘Freedom of conscience and free
profession, practice and propagation of religion’ and ‘Freedom to manage religious affairs

14
Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof
shall have specific rights’ which should take in account of the ‘morality’

As it already states about the decorous verses of religious stances, ‘conscience’, ‘public order’,
‘morality’ and ‘health.’

15
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I.

WHETHER THE PETITION PLACED BEFORE THE COURT IS MAINTAINABLE?

1. The counsel of respondent modestly succumbs that the petition brought in the Honorable
Court in the form of ‘PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION’ by the UFFRA NGO is not
maintainable as it seems to just attract the attention of the Community and has been a
‘public stunt’ rather a ‘bluff’ at large.

2. In a September 2008 speech, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed concern over
the misuse of PILs: “Many would argue that like in so many things in public life, in PILs
too we may have gone too far. Perhaps a corrective was required and we have had some
balance restored in recent times”. In what may be a tool against frivolous PILs, the Union
Ministry of Law and Justice is preparing a law regulating PILs. Helping the ministry was
former Chief Justice of India late P. N. Bhagwati who pioneered PIL. Justice V. R.
Krishna Iyer, was also part of it till his death on 4 December 2014.
3. The judgment said: “This court wants to make it clear that an action at law is not a game
of chess. A litigant who approaches the court must come with clean hands. He cannot
prevaricate and take inconsistent positions”. Since the Amar Singh petition was vague,
not in conformance with the rules of procedure and contained inconsistencies, the court
did not explore his primary grievance (infringement of privacy). One positive outcome of
the case was the court’s request that the government “frame certain statutory guidelines
to prevent interception of telephone conversation on unauthorised requests”. In this case,
Reliance Communications acted upon a forged request from police.
4. Chief Justice of India TS Thakur recently voiced a concern regarding the misuse of PIL
as an instrument to ‘settle scores with corporate rivals and also for personal vendetta’.
This has posed, once again, serious questions regarding the exercise of PIL. To
understand what has gone wrong with the PIL mechanism, which has undoubtedly helped
in massive social transformation in last few decades, Shishir Tripathi spoke to eminent

16
 jurist and former Attorney-General of India Soli Sorabjee on this issue and others related
to higher judiciary.
Question: In December 2014 a bench of Chief Justice HL Dattu and Justice AK Sikri
remarked that “public interest litigation was started with a good intention to help the poor
people of this country. But it is being misused now". What, according to you, has gone
wrong with PIL, Sir?
5. Soli Sorabjee: Public interest litigation (PIL) is a valuable mechanism to redress the
problems of the neglected, alienated and marginalized sections of society. Now, one
prerequisite is that it must be instituted ‘bona fide’ and must avoid the three pitfalls
associated with PIL: namely ‘private interest litigation’, ‘political interest litigation’ and
‘publicity interest litigation’. In a way the Supreme Court has itself brought upon itself
the problem by entertaining PILs very liberally, if I may say, extravagantly. Every matter
of public interest cannot be a matter of public interest litigation. For example rise in the
price of onions. So public interest litigation requires a good jockey in the saddle to keep it
on the right track and fulfil the objectives for which it was originally designed.
6. In the present scenario, the UFFRA NGO is using the NGO as a weapon of publicity and
to gain popularity in the eyes of the masses.
There have been instances when the court has rejected the so called PILs by discerning an
oblique motive of serving a private interest or harming a rival industrialist. The trouble is
that different benches have different mindsets in entertaining PILs which leads to
inconsistencies and lack of coherence.

II.

THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ART. 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF URESSIA

7. The counsels on behalf of the respondent humbly submits that the complaint filed under
Art. 32 is brought before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (hereinafter referred as
‘SC’) has no such legal validation. When there has been no violation of any fundamental
right, to file under Art. 32 of the Constitution of Uressia.

17
 [I.A]Whether there is a violation of fundamental rights?

8. The counsels on behalf of the respondent humbly submits even though Part III of the
Constitution of Uressia, enlists some basic rights which are available to individuals which
encompasses Art. 14 and Art. 21, but along with which certain religious rights under Art 25 and
Art 26 of the Constitution of Uressia has been accumulated.

‘Article 25 in The Constitution Of Uressia, 1949’

“25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion

(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all
persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and
propagate religion

(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from
making any law

(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may
be associated with religious practice;

(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions
of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus Explanation I The wearing and
carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion
Explanation II In sub clause (b) of clause reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a
reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu
religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.”

In the aforementioned its states that every individual is “equally entitled to freedom of
conscience” and has the right “to profess, practice and propagate religion” of one’s choice.
Practicing religion or the act of propagating it should not, however, affect the “public order,
morality and health.” The Article doesn’t put any restriction on the government when it comes to
making any law to regulate “economic, financial, political or other secular” activities, which may
be associated with religious practice.

18
‘Article 26 in The Constitution Of Uressia, 1949’

“26. Freedom to manage religious affairs Subject to public order, morality and health, every
religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right

(a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes;

(b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;

(c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and

(d) to administer such property in accordance with law

9. Henceforth, the ‘priest’ being the head of the religious Community had just distinctly
made such verdicts owing to the religious beliefs of the institution or the community he
heads.
10. The Kais communities people have a practice to take donate one organ of the body from
those people who acquire natural death. Kais community discard the donation of an organ
who go for unnatural death, because it is been told that “We should not despair of the
eternal salvation of person who have taken their own lives”.
The counsel humbly pleas that there has been no violation of fundamental rights as the its
been the religious belief and practice of the Community which has been pronounced by
the priest.

III.

WHETHER THE PRIEST IS PREDISPOSED FOR THE GROSS VIOLATION OF MRS.

MUFFIN’S HUMAN RIGHT TO ‘DIE WITH DIGNITY’?

11. The counsel entreaties on behalf of the respondent that the priest of KAIS
COMMUNITY TRUST ORGANISATION which is controlled and financed by
GOVERNMENT OF URESSIA has not been vulnerable to the gross desecration of Mrs.
Muffin’s human right to ‘die with dignity’.
[III.A]Whether the reason specified by the priest was discriminatory in
nature and also arbitrary so as violate the equality guaranteed by the Art. 14
of the Constitution of Uressia?

19
12. The counsel docilely complies to the facts which etches that ‘The priest of KAIS
COMMUNITY TRUST ORGANISATION which is controlled and financed by
GOVERNMENT OF URESSIA, and has substantial control over its management, has
discarded to take the donation of organ from Mrs. Muffin and her son, the reason which
has been stated by the priest was that Mrs. Muffin and her son are not having natural
death, which is not according to their culture, which means the unnatural death is like
suicide and it is self-murder, and so anyone who commits it is sin and it is the same as if
the person has murdered another human being.’ where the reason specified by the priest
has been projecting the belief the religion. As a priest is always regarded as the ‘chief’ or
the ‘protector’ of the religion.
13. The counsel appeals that such reason stated by the priest was religious in nature wherein
when the pronouncement has been self-decisive on the part of Mrs. Muffin but has been
against the religious belief of the Kais Community and also stands no arbitrary in nature
so as to violate ‘equality’ guaranteed by the Art. 14 of the Constitution of Uressia.
14. Art 25 and Art 26 of the Constitution of Uressia staunchly promotes the religious
practices and belief of the religious community presiding at the land, Uressia.

[III.B]Whether any person not devising natural death should be considered

as committing a sin?

IV.

WHETHER THE ART 21 OF CONSTITUTION OF URESSIA ‘PROTECTION OF

LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY’ CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE ‘RIGHT TO DIE’
OR TO TERMINATE ONE’S OWN LIFE?

15. Now, the question arises whether right to life under Article 21 includes right to die or not.
This question came for consideration for first time before the High Court of Bombay in
State of Maharashtra v. Maruti Sripati Dubal. In this case the Bombay High Court held
that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 includes right to die, and the hon’ble

20
 High Court struck down section 309 IPC which provides punishment for attempt to
commit suicide by a person as unconstitutional.

16. In P Rathinam v. Union of India a Division Bench of the Supreme Court supporting
the decision of the High Court of Bombay in. Maruti Sripati Dubal case held that under
Article 21 right to life also include right to die and laid down that section 309 of Indian
Penal Court which deals with ‘ attempt to commit suicide is a penal offence’
unconstitutional.

17. This issue again raised before the court in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab. In this case a
five judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court overruled the P. Ratinam’s case
and held that “Right to Life” under Article 21 of the Constitution does not include “Right
to die” or “Right to be killed” and there is no ground to hold that the section 309, IPC is
constitutionally invalid. To true meaning of the word ‘life’ in Article 21 means life with
human dignity. Any aspect of life which makes life dignified may be include in it but not
that which extinguishes it. The ‘Right to Die’ if any, is inherently inconsistent with the
“Right to Life” as is “death” with “Life”.

18. A question may arise, in case of a dying man, who is, seriously ill or has been
suffering from virulent and incurable form of disease 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 ‘Right to Die’ with dignity as a part of life with dignity.
According to the court these are not cases of extinguishing life but only of accelerating
the process of natural death which has already commenced.
No International law includes right to die with reference to right to life.

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE “RIGHT TO DIE”

-“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

Article 3, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 There is not a “right to die” under
international law. Such a “right” cannot be inferred from the ordinary meaning of any human
rights document. On the contrary, human rights documents call upon states to protect life. Of

21
 the 193 members of the United Nations, only four have legalized euthanasia (the
Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Canada). The issue continues to be fiercely debated
but has been rejected by legislatures in many jurisdictions.
International Law
Article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states,
“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.”
The counsel humbly submits in the court that there has been no International Convention that
projects ‘Right to die’ and ‘Right to life’ altogether in a platter.

V.

WHETHER THE ‘LIVING WILL’ PRIMED BY MRS. MUFFIN HOLD LEGAL

SUBSISTENCE?

19. The counsel on behalf of the respondent would like to embrace the ‘living will’ primed by
Mrs. Muffin holding no legal subsistence. As enshrined, “Mrs. Muffin has decided that she and
on behalf of his son, has written a living will through which she can choose to not opt for
medical treatment in malignant brain tumor for herself and for his son who is suffering from
ESTHESIONEUROBLASTOMA. In living will document she had also asked for donation of the
organ which is done by the Kais community.”3

20. ‘LIVING WILL’ OR ‘ICHHAMARAN’

This is a document executed by a competent person of sound mind, on his/her own volition and
without coercion, about the health care decisions to be followed in the event of the person
becoming incompetent to make crucial decisions. The ‘Living Will’ may be in the nature of
detailed instructions regarding health care decisions laid out by an individual or it may be a

22
proxy directive whereby a durable power of attorney is delegated to someone else (surrogate
decision maker).

21. PROPOSED LAW: LIVING WILL’ IN INDIA

‘Living Will’ is not yet a legally valid document in India. Dr. B. N. Colabawala has prepared a
draft bill on ‘Living Will’. It proposes to empower persons above the age of 18 years, in sound
possession of mind and not under any duress to execute the will. The bill defines competent
person, terminal conditions, attending physician and qualified patient. The bill also defines the
conduct of the physician. Voluntarism of both, the physician and the patient is emphasised. The
bill seeks legal immunity for physicians acting in accordance with the ‘Living Will’ act. It also
seeks to consider such a death as natural and not suicide. Saf’et; l clauses, including penalties for
abuse, have been included.

Any person above the age of 18 years can execute ‘Living Will’. It is presumed that a major has
the capacity dispassionate thinking about his or her own good. ‘Living Will’, unlike a suicide
note, is addressed specifically to the treating physician or next of kin. It documents the dos and
don’ts for the physician in the event of terminal illness so that the suffering soul is not trapped in
a tattered body. A ‘Living Will’ should include detailed guidelines on situations under which the
patient should not be resuscitated or the life prolonged endlessly. This helps in clearing any
ambiguity and enhances compliance by the treating physician.

22. CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN LIFE NOT TO BE SUPPORTED:

 The draft of the ‘Living Will’ lists the following situations where advanced directives to
stop supporting life can become operational:

 Stoppage of heart function for a period which can result in irreversible damage.

 Severe and, lasting brain damage from any cause.

 Cessation of brain stem function

23
  Any irreversible or irremediable disease causing severe physical or mental distress which
renders one incapable of rationally purposeful and useful existence or when the vital
bodily functions are incapable of independent functioning.

 Any form of terminal illness such as malignant cancer, severe immune deficiency disease
or advanced degenerative disease of the nervous system leading to vegetative existence.

The court said that family members and relatives of terminally ill patients seeking passive
euthanasia could go to court to have it sanctioned. A team of doctors would then be appointed by
the court to decide if it is needed.

23. SAFEGUARDS

There are adequate safeguards built into the proposed law to prevent any possible abuse of the
provision. Here is an example. Two witnesses are required to testify that the declarant has drawn
up his will in sound mind and when in the full possession of decision making faculty. The
witnesses are required to declare that they have no claim on any portion of the estate of the
declarant upon his/her death.

There have been a number of requests for active euthanasia - any act that intentionally helps
another person kill themselves - by Indians which have been rejected by courts and authorities.

In 2008, Jeet Narayan, a resident of Uttar Pradesh state, wrote to the then Indian president
Pratibha Patil seeking permission to end the lives of his four bed-ridden, paralysed children. The
president had rejected the plea.

In 2013, Dennis Kumar, a porter from Tamil Nadu, sought permission from the authorities to end
the life of his infant son, who had been suffering from a congenital disorder. The plea was
rejected by a court.

24. INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS:

Article 6(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) states that “every child has the
inherent right to life,” and makes no mention of a right to death.”

24
Rather than recognizing a “right to die”, UN treaties implicitly reject this notion by including
strong protections for the sick, disabled, and elderly –the people most often affected by the
legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide. For example, Article 23 of the CRC recognizes
that “a mentally or physically disabled child should enjoy a full and decent life, in conditions
which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance and facilitate the child's active participation in the
community.”

The child right to life has been protected by the aforementioned Articles of International
Covenants.

25. UN DOCUMENTS

Not only is there no mention of a “right to die” within UN treaties, the interpretation of these
treaties over the course of several decades has not resulted in a single piece of support for
euthanasia or assisted suicide.

On the contrary, UN treaty bodies have expressed concern regarding the practice of euthanasia in
the small minority of countries where it is legal. For example, the Concluding Observations of
the Human Rights Committee on the Netherlands state, “The Committee remains concerned at
the extent of euthanasia and assisted suicides in the State party.
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.” (96th session, 5
August 2009, at § 7.)

26. REGIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

Numerous regional human rights treaties recognize the right to life, including Article 2 of the
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 2 of the European Charter of Fundamental
Rights, Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights, and Article 4 of the African
Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights – none of which mention or even hint at a “right to die.”

25
According to the European Court of Human Rights, “Article 2 cannot, without a distortion
of language, be interpreted as conferring the diametrically opposite right, namely a right to die;
nor can it create a right to self-determination in the sense of conferring on an individual the
entitlement to choose death rather than life. The Court accordingly finds that no right to die,
whether at the hands of a third person or with the assistance of a public authority, can be derived
from Article 2 of the Convention.” (Pretty v. United Kingdom
(2002)
Claims to read a “right to die” into privacy rights under Article 8 of the Convention have also
failed (see Gross v. Switzerland, Application no. 67810/10, 2014 and Haas v. Switzerland,
Application no. 31322/07, 2011.)

In 1999 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe recommended that member states
“respect and protect the dignity of terminally ill or dying persons in all respects by upholding the
prohibition against intentionally taking the life of terminally ill or dying persons.”

In Resolution 1859 (2012) § 5, the Assembly stated,

“Euthanasia, in the sense of the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human
being for his or her alleged benefit, must always be prohibited.”

27. FURTHER SOURCES

The World Medical Association (WMA) has consistently and categorically rejected the practice
of euthanasia and assisted suicide as being unethical.

In its Declaration on Euthanasia, adopted by the 38th World Medical Assembly, Madrid, Spain,
October 1987, the WMA stated, “Euthanasia, that is the act of deliberately ending the life of a
patient, even at the patient's own request or at the request of close relatives, is unethical.”

In its Statement on Physician-

26
Assisted Suicide, adopted by the 44th World Medical Assembly, Marbella, Spain, September
1992, the WMA stated, “Physicians-assisted suicide, like euthanasia, is unethical and must be
condemned by the medical profession.

Where the counsel submits that the child must be given the right to live until he comes to the
vegetative stage or somatic state

VI.

WHETHER THE CONCEPT OF ‘DIGNITY’ SHALL BE CONSTRUED WITHIN

THE AMBIT OF ART. 25 AND ART. 26 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF URESSIA?

28. The counsel on behalf of the respondent the concept of ‘dignity’ shall be not construed
within the domain of Art. 25 and Art. 26 of the constitution of Uressia. As Art. 25 and Art. 26 of
the Constitution of Uressia revolves around ‘Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice
and propagation of religion’ and ‘Freedom to manage religious affairs Subject to public order,
morality and health.’

Art 25 and Art 26 of the Uressian Constitution has already made provisions for the same with
special reference to ‘public order’, ‘morality’ and ‘health.’

27
 PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsel for the
Respondent humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to adjudge, hold and declare:

1. That, the writ petition filed by petittioners is not maintainable in the court of law.

2. That, the interpretation of ‘right to life’ as ‘right to die’ under article 21 in unconstitutional.

3. That, the living will hold no legal validation under the jurisdiction of court.

4. That, the respondents were justified in discarding the donation of organs by the petitioners.

And pass any order that this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit in the interest of equity, justice
and good conscience. And for this act of kindness, the counsel for the appellant shall duty bound
forever pray.

Sd/-

(Counsel for Respondent)

28
 TABLE OF EXHIBITS

PARTICULARS EXHIBIT PAGE NOS.

 CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE 1 24

CHILD (CRC)

 CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS OF THE 2 25

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE

 EUROPEAN CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL 3 25

RIGHTS

 AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN 4 26

RIGHTS
 INTERNATIONAL DECLARATION ON 5 26
WORLD MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

 UDHR 6

29
30