MOOT COURT – 2019

Team Code: B

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

ON SUBMISSION FOR HEARING

ANJALI MENON, ISK FERTILITY CLINIC &

BLUEBELL HOSPITAL…….…… …..………………………….……....PETITIONER

v.

AKASH, TINA & STATE. …. .…….……….…………………….……RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

 MOOT COURT 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. List of Abbreviations………….…………………………………………………...

2. Index of Authorities…………….………………………………………….………

Table of Cases

Websites

Statutes

3. Statement of Jurisdiction …………….………………………………….……......

4. Statement of Facts …………………….……………………………..…................

5. Statement of Issues…………………….…………………………………….……

6. Summary of Arguments……………….……………………………………….…

7. Arguments Advanced………………….…………………………………………..

ISSUE 1- WHETHER ANJALI MENON, ISK FERTILITY CLINIC AND BLUE BELL
HOSPITAL HAVE THE LOCUS STANDI TO FILE THIS PETITION?

ISSUE 2 – WHETHER AKASH AND TINA JUSTIFIED IN REQUESTING TERMINATION

OF PREGNANCY IN THE EIGHTH MONTH ON THE GROUND OF THEIR DIVORCE ?

ISSUE 3 – WHETHER ISK FERTILITY CLINIC IS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING AKASH

AND TINA’S REQUEST ON THE GROUND OF ANJALY’S HEALTH POSSIBLY AT
RISK?

8. Prayer …………………………………………………………..…………...……..

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER Page 2

 MOOT COURT 2019

ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article

Anr. Another

CriL J Criminal Law Journal

CEDAW Convention on elimination of All forms of

. discrimination against women

Id., Idem

J. Justice

NZLR New Zealand Law Reports

Ors. Others

PIL Public interest litigation

PUDR People’s union for democratic rights

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reports

UK United Kingdom

US United States

V. Verses

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER Page 3

 MOOT COURT 2019

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

 TABLE OF CASES

Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdul bhai Faizulla bhai

S P Gupta v. Union of India

Vineet Narain v. Union of India

PUDR v. Union of India

Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan

Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar

Paramananda Katara v. Union of India,.

Manickam pillai v State of Anr.

Krishnan v. G. Rajan and Ors.

Savitha Sachin Patil v. Union of India

R v. Davidson

Miss L v State of Karnataka

Alakh Alok Srivasthava v Union of India

In Manekha Gandhi v. Union of India

Dr. Mell Wall Case; Wall v. Livingston

Roe v. Wade

In Vo v. France

Right of Abortion v. Child in Mother’s Womb

 STATUTES

The Constitution of India, 1950

The Medical termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER Page 4

 MOOT COURT 2019

 WEBSITES
1. Government of India. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. New Delhi:
GoI; 1971 [cited 2018 Sep 5]. Act No. 34 of 1971.
2. https://iipsindia.org/pdf/india%20Report.pdf
3. http://tcw.nic.in/Acts/MTP-Act-1971.pdf

4. Cheng EY. Prenatal diagnosis. In: Gleason CA, Juul SE, Editors. Avery’s Diseases of
the Newborn. 10th ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2018. pp 190-200.

5. www.hsph.Harvard.edu/organizations/healthnet/sAsia/repro/MTP act

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER Page 5

 MOOT COURT 2019

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India has the jurisdiction in this matter under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India which reads as follows:

“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part-

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs
in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this
Part.”

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER Page 6

 MOOT COURT 2019

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Akash Talreja has businesses across five countries which requires him to travel frequently
His wife, Tina Talreja is a former super model and socialite. After three years of
marriage.Akash was desirous of having a child. However, the couple was unable to have a
child. On seeking medical advice and after medical examination, it was learned that due to a
genetic condition, Tina was infertile and would not be able to carry the baby.
As Akash continued to be keen to have a child, Akash and Tina sought the assistance of
medical experts at ISK fertility clinic. Akash and Tina were advised that they could opt for
surrogacy and the surrogate mother would also be the egg donor, Akash and Tina completed
all the formalities and agreed to bear all the medical and other expenses involved. Anjali
Menon, the proposed surrogate, was contacted and treatment commenced Akash and Tina
would regularly contact Anjali to enquire about her health and the health of the baby. After
seven months and one week of the pregnancy, Akash and Tina informed ISK fertility clinic
and Anjali that they had divorced and were no longer desirous of going ahead with the
pregnancy. While they did not disclose the reasons leading upto their divorce, they stated that
as a result of their divorce,they may not now be able to provide an environment conducive to
the well-being of the baby.As the eighth month had commenced and it was a matter of weeks
before the child would be born,it was uncertain What effect such termination of pregnancy
would have on the health of Anjali On Ist January 2019,Baby Q was born in Bluebell
Hospital. Both Akash and Tina refused to take BabyQ. Baby Q continues to be in the care of
the Bluebell Hospital. Baby Q through Anjali,ISK fertility clinic and Bluebell Hospital have
jointly filed a public interest litigation against Akash, Tina and the State to not only protect
the rights of Baby Q but also to seek the intervention of the highest court in framing
guidelines to protect and ensure that no more babies suffer the same fate as Baby Q.

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER Page 7

 MOOT COURT 2019

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1

WHETHER ANJALI MENON, ISK FERTILITY CLINIC AND BLUE BELL

HOSPITAL HAVE THE LOCUS STANDI TO FILE THIS PETITION?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER AKASH AND TINA JUSTIFIED IN REQUESTING TERMINATION OF

PREGNANCY IN THE EIGHTH MONTH ON THE GROUND OF THEIR DIVORCE
?

ISSUE 3

WHETHER ISK FERTILITY CLINIC IS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING AKASH AND

TINA’S REQUEST ON THE GROUND OF ANJALY’S HEALTH POSSIBLY AT
RISK?

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER Page 8

 MOOT COURT 2019

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1- WHETHER ANJALI MENON, ISK FERTILITY CLINIC AND BLUE

BELL HOSPITAL HAVE THE LOCUS STANDI TO FILE THIS PETITION?

It is humbly submitted before The Honorable Court that present PIL is maintainable against
Akash, Tina and The State since, it is a state under Article 12 of the Constitution. It is
submitted that since there has been gross violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the
constitution, the PIL is maintainable and on account of the same, relief is sought.

ISSUE 2 – WHETHER AKASH AND TINA JUSTIFIED IN REQUESTING

TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY IN THE EIGHTH MONTH ON THE GROUND
OF THEIR DIVORCE ?
It is humbly submitted that matrimonial discord cannot be considered as a ground for
permitting termination of pregnancy by invoking provisions of the Medical Termination of
Pregnancy Act, 1971. For the event qualities which are spelt out in the petition, it is really
difficult to consider and grant the request of the respondent for permitting her to have
termination of pregnancy

ISSUE 3 – WHETHER ISK FERTILITY CLINIC IS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING

AKASH AND TINA’S REQUEST ON THE GROUND OF ANJALY’S HEALTH
POSSIBLY AT RISK?

It is humbly submitted that none of the medical papers which are placed on record certifies
that there is imminent danger to life of the surrogate mother nor the condition of the foetus is
incompatible with the extra uterine life. It is even not the case of the surrogate mother that the
foetus would not be able to survive. The respondents has also not demonstrated that
continuation of pregnancy can gravely endanger the physical and mental health of the
petitioner." We thus see that respondents plea is not supported by strong causes thereby
leading to the rejection of the claim.

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER Page 9

 MOOT COURT 2019

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1- WHETHER ANJALI MENON, ISK FERTILITY CLINIC AND BLUE

BELL HOSPITAL HAVE THE LOCUS STANDI TO FILE THIS PETITION?

Commercial surrogacy in India was legalised in India in 2002 and out lawed in 2018. During
the nearly two decades it was legal, India was a major provider of surrogacy for both
domestic and international intended parents. The availability medical infrastructure and their
potential surrogacy combined with international demand, fueled the growth of the industry.
Surrogate mother received medical infrastructural and overall healthcare through surrogacy
agreement.

The right of the citizen to file a public interest litigation

A public interest litigation is not defined in any statute or any act. It has been interpreted by
judge to consider the intent of public at large.

When public interest is affecting at large then this can be filed but affection on only one
person is not a ground for filing a petition. There are some various area where a public
interest Litigation can be filed:

1. Violation of human rights of the poor.

2. Content or conduct of government policy.

3. Compel Municipal authorities to perform a public duty.

4. Violation of religious rights or other basic fundamental rights.

Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdul bhai Faizulla bhai1, where J. Krishna Iyer allowed a group
of people to file on behalf of others. Right of members were violated. J. Krishna Iyer held
that one individual or group of individuals together can come to the court.

S P Gupta v. Union of India, 2 it was held that any members of the public or social action
groups acting bonafide can invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court or the Supreme
Court seeking redressal against violation of a legal or constitutional right.

1
1976 AIR 1455
2
AIR 1982 SCC 149

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER Page 10

 MOOT COURT 2019

Just like a writ petition which is filed in High Court 3 or Supreme Court 4 under the
constitution. When a public interest is affecting at large, then this can be filed.

Vineet Narain v. Union of India 5, public health had to rank high as constitutional values as
there were indispensable to the very physical existence of the community. Therefore, PIL
can be generated for right to life.

Protection of life and personal liberty is stated under “right to life and personal liberty”,
which says no citizen can be denied his life and liberty except by law. This means that a
person's life and personal liberty can be displaced only if that person committed a crime. 6

In PUDR v. Union of India 7 , public Interest Litigation as we conceive is essentially a

cooperative or collaborative effort of the constitutional or legal rights, benefits and privileges
conferred upon the vulnerable section of the community and to reach Social justice to
interested persons in ensuring basic human rights, constitutional as well as legal to those who
are in a socially economically disadvantaged position as the petitioner who brings the PIL to
the court.

Rights of a surrogate mother

1. Selective sex should be banned

2. Right to privacy of surrogate mother

3. In case of abortion which should be governed by Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act,

1971

4. Life Insurance must be provided to the mother

5. The surrogate mother shall be provided with financial support in case of death of child or
divorce of couple.

One of the main provision regarding the rights of the child is that, legislation itself should
recognise a surrogate child to be legitimate child of the commissioning parents without their
being any need for adoption or even declaration of guardian.

3
The Constitution of India, Art. 226
4
Id. Art. 32
5
(1996)2 SCC 199
6
The Constitution of India, Art. 21
7
1982 AIR 1473

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER Page 11

 MOOT COURT 2019

Here in the case Anjali Menon, ISK fertility and Blue Bell Hospital have the local status to
file a PIL on behalf of Baby Q.

Violation of fundamental rights

The concept of right to life was assessed out of capital punishment, war, abortion,
euthanasia, police brutality, justifiable homicide, animal welfare and Public Health Care.

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to law. 8

Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration9, Sunil Batra a prisoner in Tihar Jail, New Delhi wrote a
letter to the Supreme Court regarding the inhuman conditions in prison. Batra brought to
notice an incident where a jail warden pierced a baton into the anus of a prisoner.

The court led by Justice Krishna Iyer took cognizance of this letter making clear that
technical and legal niceties are no impediments for a habeas corpus petition. In some ways
this case recognized for the first time public interest litigation as a tool to protect
constitutional rights of the voiceless. it was also held that right to life includes right to lead a
healthy life.

Vishaka v. state of Rajasthan10, The matter of child marriage came before the Supreme Court
via a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a group of NGOs by the name of “Vishakha” in
which the petitioners urged for judicial intervention to make workplaces safer for women due
to the legislative inactivity in this regard. The Supreme Court observed that India was already
a signatory to Convention on elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW) and held that international conventions are to be read into the fundamental rights
to enlarge their scope and advance their objective. It thus read the provisions of CEDAW
(signed by India in 1980) in Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and laid down
binding guidelines to be followed by every private and public sector employer to ensure the
dignity and safety of women in the place of employment.It promoted greater enforcement of
women’s rights and broader application of international law at the High Court level. The case
has thus been described as “path-breaking”, “one of the most powerful legacies” of PIL, and
a “trendsetter” that “created a revolution”.

8
Supra note 6
9
(1978)4 SCC 409
10
AIR 1997 SC 3011

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER Page 12

 MOOT COURT 2019

Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar 11, Many have regarded this case as the first PIL in India
as well. In this case, the attention of the Court focussed on the incredible situation of under-
trials in Bihar who had been in detention pending trial for periods far in excess of the
maximum sentence for their offences. The Court not only proceeded to make the right to a
speedy trial the central issue of the case, but passed the order of general release of close to
40,000 under-trials who had undergone detention beyond such maximum period.

Paramananda Katara v. Union of India, 12 Parmanand Katara, a human rights activist, filed a
writ petition in the Supreme Court. His basis was a newspaper report concerning the death of
a scooterist after an accident with a speeding car. Doctors refused to attend to him. They
directed him to another hospital around 20 km. away that could handle medico-legal cases.
Based on the petition, the Supreme Court held that:

 Preservation of human life is of paramount importance.

 Every doctor, at a government hospital or otherwise, has the professional obligation to
extend his/her services to protect life.
 There should be no doubt that the effort to save the person should receive top
priority. This applies not only to the legal profession, but also to the police and other
citizens part of the matter.
.

Tina and Akash offended the fundamental rights of baby Q as well as the surrogate mother
Anjali Menon. In the legal parents of baby cute refusing the baby amounts to the violation of
fundamental rights of the child and also asking Anjali for the termination can also lead to the
curtailment of her rights to life.

Therefore the act of Tina and Akash amounts to violation of fundamental rights and Anjali,
the ISK fertility clinic and Blue Bell hospital have the locus standi to file the public interest
litigation on behalf of baby Q.

11
1979 AIR 1369
12
1989 AIR 2039

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER Page 13

 MOOT COURT 2019

ISSUE 2 – WHETHER AKASH AND TINA JUSTIFIED IN REQUESTING

TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY IN THE EIGHTH MONTH ON THE GROUND
OF THEIR DIVORCE ?

Abortion is the termination of pregnancy when foetus and other pregnancy product’s are
expelled from womb before it is sufficiently developed to survive independently it may
occur without any intervention or may be induced

Termination of pregnancy has been legal in India since 1971 when the
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act was passed. The law is quite liberal it aims to reduce
illegal abortion and maternal morality. An abortion can be performed in India until 20 th acre
of pregnancy. The act promoted abortion in the following cases.

(1) A women has serious disease and pregnancy could endanger her life.
(2) A women physical or mental health is endanger, by the pregnancy.
(3) The foetus has a substantial risk of physical or mental handicap.
(4) A women contract rubella during the first three month of pregnancy.
(5) Any of a women previous children had congenital abnormalities.
(6) The foetus is suffering from RH disease.
(7) The foetus has been imposed to irradiation .
(8) The pregnancy is result of rape.
(9) A contraceptive device failed.

In this particular case above mentioned circumstances are not satisfied therefore Teena and
Akash request for termination of pregnancy on the ground of divorce is not maintainable.

The right to life is a very broad concept and has been recognized under Indian Constitution 13.

The introduction covenant on civil and political right 1960 declares that every human beings
has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law no one shall ne arbitrarily,
deprived of his life14. Every human being includes the unborn life convention on the right of
the child 1989. Assert that state parties shall ensure to the maximum extent the possible the
survival and development of the child. Before passing of medical termination of pregnancy.

13
Article 1 of the Indian Constitution, 1950
14 Article 6 of the International Covenant on civil and political right, 1966

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER Page 14

 MOOT COURT 2019

In Manekha Gandhi v. Union of India 15, Held that the right to life embodied in Article 21 of
the Indian Constitution is not merely a physical right. But it also includes within its ambit’s.
The right to live with human dignity. The case is applicable to this particular case in the
sense that the union has right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Dr. Mell Wall Case; Wall v. Livingston16, Dr. Mell Wall is a paediatrician at New Plymolin
Hospital discovered that 15years old patient is pregnant. She was prepared to continue the
pregnancy. But her own GP arranged on abortion. Dr. Wall considered there was no
justification for abortion and want to court to challenge the certifying consultants
authorization.

(i) He that there were no medical or legal criteria that applied on the case the
certificate had been issued on the bad faith.
(ii) The court of appeal dismissed the case leaving no legal standing for the unborn
child. And establishing immunity for certifying consultants.

Fetal rights are the moral and legal rights of the human foetus under natural and
civil law. The term foetus rights came into wide usage after the land mark case.

Roe v. Wade17, That the legalized abortion in the United States in 1973. The concept of fetal
right has evolved to include the issue of maternal drug and alcohol abuse. The only
International Treaty specifically taking fetal right is the American Convention on Human
Rights which envisages the right to life of the foetus while International Human Right
instrument look a universal inclusion of the foetus as a person for the purpose of human
right. The foetus is granted various rights in the constitute and civil code of several countries.
Many legal experts believe there is an increasing need to settle the legal status of the foetus.

In Vo v. France18, Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Right to the unborn

foetus on the jurisprudence of the European court of human rights on a state obligation to
protect life in respect of but in voluntary and involuntary termination of pregnancies.
Abortion laws in Europe and the US and signifies that a moral prospective on the status of the

15
1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621
16
(1982) 1 NZLR 734
17
410 US 113 (1973)
18
(2003)

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER Page 15

 MOOT COURT 2019

embryo could justify the imposition of criminal penalties for foetal death caused by violent
conduct against a pregnant women without prejudice to the rights of the women,

Right of Abortion v. Child in Mother’s Womb 19 , Medical Termination of Pregnancy

Regulation, 2003 enacted by virtue of section 7 of the Act, require doctors to fulfill some
more conditions in India abortion take place not for exercising the right over body but to get
rid of girl child.

Here the termination of pregnancy is not possible on the ground of Ashok and Teena divorce
and right to life is a fundamental right and nobody can deprived it, the abortion is conducted
that violated the child right to life.

19
1860

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER Page 16

 MOOT COURT 2019

ISSUE 3 – WHETHER ISK FERTILITY CLINIC IS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING

AKASH AND TINA’S REQUEST ON THE GROUND OF ANJALY’S HEALTH
POSSIBLY AT RISK?

The abortion of 28 week aged child was negatively affect the mother so the ISK fertility
clinic can reject the abortion of Anjali or the surrogate mother. Abortion after 24 weeks was
normally very risk to mother. The ISK fertility clinic can reject the abortion they are group of
experts in medical science. Here the health of Anjaly was at risk . It was determined by a
doctor. So they can reject the abortion on the ground of her health . Also the law cannot
permit abortion after 24 weeks. So the ISK fertility clinic can reject the abortion.

The law in India and the Medical Science permit abortion normally up to 24 weeks. In
particular and very rare circumstance they allow abortion after 24 weeks. The abortion after
24 weeks was called late termination of pregnancy. Here the maximum time period of
pregnancy was crossed , it was up to 24 weeks and the Akash and Tina's requested for
abortion of 28 week child. So it was negatively affect the mother and also it was a matter of
Right to life of the child. So the ISK fertility clinic can reject the abortion on the ground of
Anjali's health.

In Manickam pillai v State and Anr 20 , argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
respondent is that on the authority of Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, the
substance administered by the 1st accused led to the death of Padmavathi. In this case the
women was caused death due to infection on her body. The infection raised out of abortion
and this court was held the are labile for death.

The court decision was very important in this case also if the late abortion was caused any
abnormality to the mother then the hospital authority was answerable, here the doctors
already stated there has a risk to mother.

So the doctors can reject the abortion of surrogate mother, on their safety and their ethics.

20
1972 CriLJ 1488

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER Page 17

 MOOT COURT 2019

Risk of abortion

Most commonly the women under going abortion after 18 weeks are Cervical abortion it may
some times gives birth of fetus that may survive 21 . It was negatively affect the mother,
because it may cause serious mental damage to mother and also affect the child in reaming
life time.

Abortion may cause breast cancer22,the study held by W.Bush studies suggest the elective
abortion leads to Brest cancer. The percentage of the breast cancer due to abortion is between
2 to 5, Chances of infertility, the late abortion mostly surgical in nature. So the surgery may
cause damage to organs that will leads to in fertility to mother.

In Krishnan v. G. Rajan and Ors23, In this case court held that the abortion is legally up to the
second semester. But is at the absolute discretion of medical opinion. And court pointed out
that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, would not allow the pregnant women cannot
simply state that it was a unwanted pregnancy and cannot terminate pregnancy on the ground
of unwanted pregnancy.

The court Clearly say and dose not allow abortion on demand. This decision was very
important here. The Akash and Tina argue for abortion of Anjali was unwanted with out any
strong reason. According to decision made by court in the above case was also applicable in
this case. They argue for the abortion was with out any solid reason.

According to the act24, section 3(2) (b) prevent termination pregnancy after 20 weeks.

In Savitha Sachin Patil v. Union of India 25, Court reject the termination of pregnancy of 27
week women there has no physical risk of mother when she carry the pregnancy, and the risk
may arise due to the termination of pregnancy.

The court appointed a medical board for examine her for her health. There report was she
was mentality and physically fit at the time of she carry the pregnancy. On that report of the
medical board, the court reject the request of abortion. According to section 3(2) of the act26
the opinion formed in good faith;

21
Evidence based on clinical audit ling No.7
22
W Bush , Alternative the National Cancer Institute
23
HCHP 1450/93
24
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971
25
26
Ibid

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER Page 18

 MOOT COURT 2019

1) It continue of pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of pregnant women to

grave injury physical or mental health
2) There is a substantial risk that if the child were born in it would suffer from such
physical abnormalities as the seriously handicapped.
Also according to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act clear that were any pregnancy
is alleged by the pregnant women to have been caused by rape such pregnancy shall be
presumed to construe grave injury to the mental health of women.

So the opponent cannot argue for abortion on the ground of metal issue Anjali or surrogate
mother. Because the surrogacy was by her consent.

According to section 4 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy act, no termination of

pregnancy shall made in accordance with this act at any place other Government;

(a) a hospital established or maintained by Government,

(b) a place for the time being approved for the purpose of this Act by
Government.

The ISK fertility clinic was an institution comes under section 4(b) of the act 27. They was not
suggest termination of pregnancy. And they denied the termination of pregnancy by reason of
Anjali's health began possibility of risk. It was very important they rejecting the abortion due
to the reason of mental health, it means there is a risk in abortion.

In R v. Davidson28, it was a significant ruling in Supreme of Victoria on 26th May 1969 it

cancel the legality of abortion. in this case the supreme court of Victoria said that for an
abortion to be not unlawful the person performing the abortion must have an honest and
reasonable belief that the act was

a) necessary to preserve the woman from a serious danger to her life or her physical or
mental health (not being merely the normal dangers of pregnancy and childbirth) which the
continuance of the pregnancy would entail; and

b) in the circumstances not out of proportion to the danger to be averted.

Here court pointed out that if no abortion it will affect mother

27
Supra
28
R v Davidson 1969

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER Page 19

 MOOT COURT 2019

Miss L v State of Karnataka 29 , Here the mother was approach court for termination of
pregnancy of 31 week child. On 10/1/2019 court directed that a board of Doctors and
examine the petitioner and submit a report to court, by order of court the board of doctors was
examine the petitioner and submit report to court. The report of doctors was; the petitioner’s
31 week pregnancies termination at that time was endogenous to her life. Court take that
report as proof and could not allow termination of pregnancy.

Here the ISK fertility clinic was one of the best clinic for the purpose they was against the
termination of pregnancy. The Hon’ble court must not grant pregnancy of Anjali. The court
also liable to protect the Right to life of mother as well as child. Here the ISK fertility clinic
and there expert doctors already state it will affect the mothers health.

In Alakh Alok Srivasthava v Union of India 30, Were the petitioner was 10 years old pregnant
rape victim with 32 week pregnancy. She apply for termination of pregnancy. Normal
circumstances the victim of rape was allowed termination of pregnancy. But court did not
allow termination of pregnancy, because the expert medical board opined that the
continuation of pregnancy was less hazardous to petitioner than termination of pregnancy at
that stage. The court was depend medical boards recommendation. And does not allow
termination of pregnancy.

Here court valued more importance for the petitioner right to life. Here also court may take
decision favor of Anjali's health. Because the experts doctors opinion was the termination
was affect the life of mother. And also the law in India dose not allow pregnancy after 24
weeks. And here it was cannot consider as special case because she is not rape victim or any
abuse. And she was completed the age of majority and by here will she was agreed for
surrogacy. So here the consideration fact was protection of her life. So the hospital authority
was already stated there has a risk in abortion. And the Hon'ble court may consider their
opinion as expert advise and should not grant the termination of pregnancy.

29
Karnataka High court 4 February 2014
30
Writ Petition (c) No 76 of 2018

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER Page 20

 MOOT COURT 2019

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may
this Hon’ble court be pleased to uphold that :

1) Anjali Menon, ISK fertility clinic and Blue Bell hospital have the locus standi to file
this petition.
2) Akash and Teena are not justified in requesting the termination of pregnancy in the
eighth month on the ground of divorce.
3) ISK Fertility clinic is justified in rejecting Akash and Tina’s request on the ground of
Anjaly’s being possibly at risks.

AND /OR

Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the
interest of justice, equality and good conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Petitioner, as is duty bound, shall humbly pray.

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER Page 21