Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner

1 Memorial on behalf of petitioner
Table of contents

Index of Authorities

Books

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Gringotts has the jurisdiction in this matter underArticle 32 of
the Constitution of Gringotts which read as follows:
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
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for
by this Constitution

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
I. Whether the Right to live with dignity also includes Right to die with dignity?
II. Whether the patient has previously expresses the will not to have life sustaining
treatments in case of futile care should his will should be considered when the issues
arises?
III. Whether there is violation of Art.21?

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Gringotts is one of the largest democracy around the world which is based on agricultural
economy. Their Fundamental rights and directive Principles of state policy are enshrined
under the constitution the country is also trajectory to become one of the super powers in
the world.
2. Despite of being ambitious country it still holds among the countries that have a HDI
that of a medium level of human development being agricultural based economy where
the majority of the population live below poverty line.
3. Azkaban being the capital city of Gringotts holds poor medical facilities in terms of life
saving equipment though there are private health facilities which are expensive can’t be
affordable by common mass.
4. Mr. Weasley the resident of Azkaban the capital city of Gringotts is a low paid employee
in a private sector and sole breadwinner of the family, lives with his wife Mrs. Weasley
and three children among them the elder one is pursuing a undergraduate course and
other two younger siblings are at the intermediate level.
5. November 2016 Mrs. Weasley was diagnosed with a rare spinal disease as a result she
was hospitalized in GIMS controlled by central government of Gringottis despite of being
ambitious country still holds low medical facility when it comes to life saving device
where due to limited life support system there is greater chances of survival. She was in
expert treatment on life saving drugs which costed 95,000 per month to cope with the
medical treatment they also sold their marginal property, mortgaged the house and their
children also had to abandon their studies to cope with financial crisis to secure money
for the continuation of the treatment.
6. Mr. Weasley is advised by the doctor to continue on the treatment but she had requested
the doctor to remove the life support system the doctors denied as it is against the
professional medical ethics besides it would result in penal offence as a consequence
within a short time family fell into penury.
7. In December2019, Mr. Weasley filed a writ petition under A32 in Gringotts Supreme
Court to the withdrawal of the treatment to end the suffering, thus doing away with the
penury of the family

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
1. Whether Right to Live with Dignity includes Right to Die with Dignity
It is humbly submitted by the counsel behalf of the appellant under Article 21 of the Gringotts
Constitution says, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
the procedure established by law”1. Right to live with dignity doesn’t mean mere existence of the
life which animal does The question now arises is that whether the ‘right to life’ as guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution include the ‘right to die’? This came for consideration
for the first time before the Bombay High Court in Dubal’s case 2 where the court held that
fundamental rights have positive and negative aspects. Citing an example it stated, “freedom of
speech and expression includes freedom not to speak and similarly the freedom to form
association and movement includes the freedom not to join any association or move anywhere
and accordingly, it stated that logically it must follow that the ‘right to live’ would include the
right not to live that is to say the ‘right to die’ ”. The court also attempted to distinguish between
suicide and mercy killing, thereby striking down Section 3093 of IPC, 1960 as unconstitutional4.
2. Whether the patient has previously expresses the will not to have life sustaining
treatments in case of futile care should his will should be considered when the issues
arises?
It is humbly submitted by the counsel behalf of the appellant that the appellant has
expressed the living will
ARGUMENTS IN ADVANCE
1
2
State of Maharashtra vs. Maruti Sripati Dubal 1986 Mah LJ 913
3
4
Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 276(53 r d Central Law Agency, 2016)
______________________________________________________________________________
Whether Right to Live with Dignity includes Right to Die with Dignity
Right to die with dignity is a fundamental right

It is humbly submitted by the counsel behalf of the appellant under Article 21 of the Gringotts
Constitution says, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
the procedure established by law”. Right to live with dignity means a when a person is enjoying
his life in a dignified manner which means that not only a mere existence and not like the way
which animal used to do. It is humbly submitted behalf of the appellant if a person is bedridden
and dependent on others for his basic needs here the person is not living a dignified life. Now
where a person has spent most of the life without depending on other and suddenly he has to
depend on other for every basic need in that case the person loses his self esteem, confidence and
independence moreover his life becomes like a vegetable which means the person is surviving
without dignity Right to life does not mean mere animal existence but it includes a dignified or
qualitative life. Article 215 of the constitution envisage, right to preserve one’s life and personal
liberty. However under Sec.3066 and 309 of Gringotts Penal Code which punish abetment to
suicide and attempt to commit suicide respectively were found to be the two important
provisions in the way of having a legal right to die.
The term euthanasia has been derived from the Greek word Euthantos meaning, good death. The
word was used in the 17th century by Francis Bacon to refer to an easy and painless death. As it
is the physician’s duty & responsibility to alleviate the physical suffering of the patient. As far
back as 300-400 BC, both Socrates and Plato accorded moral sanction to assisted killing and
suggested that it was punishable in certain circumstances7.
It is humbly submitted that According to Grignotts Penal Code 1860, Active euthanasia is an
offence under Sec.302 Punishment for murder or at least under section 304 Punishment for
culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The difference between euthanasia and physician –
assisted death lies in who administers the lethal dose, in euthanasia this is done by a doctor or by
a third person, where as in physician assisted death this is done by the patient himself. The legal
position of PAS in Grigotts would be abetment of suicide falling under Sec306.
It is most respectfully submitted that there is a deliberation in the issue of attempted suicide in
Grigotts under Sec. 3098 which recognizes it to be a punishable act. The law goes on to define
it’s principle as whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of
such offence, should be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one
5
Article21, The Constitution of India, 1950
6
Sec.306, The Indian Penal Code, 1860
7
Pillay V.V Euthanasia; Text Book of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, 16th edition Hyderabad Paras Medical
Publisher 2011. p. 42-47.
8
Sec.309, The Indian Penal Code, 1860
year or with fine or with both. Sec 309 had been on a number of occasions challenged in the
court of law.
In the case of P. Rathinam vs. Union of India, In this case the petitioner had filed petitions
challenging the constitutional validity of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 309
punishes anyone who attempts to commit suicide with simple imprisonment for up to one year.
The Supreme Court drew a parallel between the other fundamental rights - just as the right to
freedom of speech under Article 19 gives the right to speak but also includes the right to not
speak, the right to live under Article 21 includes the right to not live. Thus, Section 309 was held
to be unconstitutional. In Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab, A five-judge bench of the Supreme
Court overruled P. Rathinam. It held that P. Rathinam was wrong on the analogy that other
fundamental rights include the “right not to” since the right not to speak (going by the illustration
P. Rathinam used) is an omission, while a taking a life is an act. Although it included several
extracts from Airedale N.H.S. Trust v. Bland ((1993) 2 WLR 316: (1993) 1 All ER 821, HL) the
Court clarified that it will not be looking into the issue of Euthanasia, and also distinguished
between right to die (unnaturally) and right to die with dignity (naturally). The Court upheld the
constitutional validity of Sections 306 and 309 IPC.

In physician Assisted Killing and euthanasia today’s emphasis is on patient’s rights as being superior to physician’s
right or society’s beliefs. The person should have the right to die with dignity and to die without suffering, just as
people have the right to live with dignity. The quality of life in an issue that must be incorporated in all cases where
the life of a person is prolonged indefinitely by artificial means.
To force a patient to be kept alive in a vegetative state when medical opinion is certain that there is no chance of
recovery, is cruel both on the patient and his/her family and friends. The law must therefore clearly allow, for
euthanasia-both active and passive-in such situations. There must however be very strict safe guards to ensure that
the provision is not misused by people, who may benefit from the death of the patient.
The Judiciary, legislating bodies, medical fraternity and community at large should understand the current concepts
and rectify certain well entrenched misconceptions in this regard. This is especially true for a country such as India
which is composed of diverse religions communities, tradition, customs and belief. It is high time that India legalizes
physician assisted suicide and be a part of the handful of nations that allows euthanasia on grounds of compassion
and maintaining the dignity of the individual.

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Memorial on behalf of petitioner

2 Memorial on behalf of petitioner

3 Memorial on behalf of petitioner

4 Memorial on behalf of petitioner

Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

5 Memorial on behalf of petitioner

6 Memorial on behalf of petitioner

7 Memorial on behalf of petitioner

Right to die with dignity is a fundamental right

10 Memorial on behalf of petitioner

14 Memorial on behalf of petitioner

You might also like