CLARIFICATIONS

QUERY : HOW DO WE REPRESENT THE PARTY OF 7 DOCTORS ?

ANSWER : CONCERENDED DOCTORS SLC HOSPITAL
QUERY : WHAT DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT DID THE DOCTORS NOT FOLLOW ?
ANSWER : THE ONE IN PARA 6
QUERY : WHEN DID HE DONATE THE OTHER KIDNEY, AS THE TIME OF DONATION IS OF
PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION

ANSWER :1ST APRIL 1995.

QUERY : WHEREABOUTS OF THE MOHAN'S MOTHER DIPTI ? WAS SHE LIVING IN INDIANA OR
BELGIUM AFTER THE DIVORCE?
ANSWER : PARA 2. SHE RETURNED TO BELGIUM
QUERY: THAT WHETHER THE ORDER FOR COMPENSATION HAS BEEN PASSED UNDER SECTION
357A SOLELY?
ANSWER: HAS BEEN ANSWERED IN PROP, PLEASE READ HIGHLIGHTED SECITONS
QUERY: WHETHER THE

HIGH COURT OR TRIAL COURT HAS SPECIFIED ANY REASONS

SUPPORTING THE CONVICTION AND SUCH A HIGHER QUANTUM OF SENTENCE?

ANSWER: TRIAL COURT FOUND IT TO BE RAREST OF RARE CASE AT THE HANDS OF THE
DOCTORS, HIGH COURT DID NOT CONCUR HENCE THE REDUCTION

MOOT PROBLEM: GROUP-2

1. Mr. Shekhar Kumar had a son from his marriage named Mohan. They lived in
Indiana and his wife, Mrs. Dipti Kumar was from Belgium. They both had married
under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
2. Mohan was born on 8thJune, 1960. Soon after Mohan was born, due to
disputes between Shekhar and Dipti, they both took divorce by mutual consent. Post
divorce Dipti returned to Belgium. When Mohan was of tender age his father passed

away due to kidney failure and at that time no one was ready to donate kidney for Mr.
Shekhar. Since, his father has passed away he has been put under the custody of Mr.
Prakash, brother of Mr. Shekhar. Thus, when Mohan attained the age of majority he
decided to donate both of his kidneys after his death to Mamta Memorial Government
Hospital, Chandipur (U.T.).
3. The whole expenses of his studies were born by his uncle Mr. Prakash. He
later became an engineer by profession and had a very good pay. After becoming an
engineer, he abandoned his uncles house. He was married on 4 th august, 1985 with
Suman under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1954 and was very happy with his wife.
4. But some time after the marriage, there were tensions among them and they
filed a case for judicial separation in the Family Court of Chandipur and a decree to
that effect was passed on 29th January, 1995. They were not able to continue
cohabitation even after the expiration of one year of judicial separation and hence,
Suman filed a case in the Family Court again to get divorce from Mohan on 26 th
March, 1996.
5. On 28th January, 1998, Mohan met with a terrible accident, where he was
involved in a car crash. He was taken to Sant Lal Chaudhary Hospital, Chandipur. He
went in comma as a result of it. The whole expenses of his treatment were coming
from his big estate.
6. There was no improvement in his condition till March 2012. The doctors
treating him were in a dilemma as to whether they should turn off his life support
system. They sought the opinion of his wife, Suman. On the request of the doctors, his
wife filed a petition in the High Court of Chandipur for passive euthanasia. On April
3, 2012, the High Court allowed the petition and the doctors started the process for
passive euthanasia.
7. On April 10, 2012, a young girl, named Meera, was admitted to the hospital in
which Mohan was being treated. She had multiple organ failure and required an
urgent kidney and liver transplant. Liver could be arranged for her but not the kidney.
When the doctors did some tests, they found that Mohans Kidney would be a perfect
match. But there were only 3 hours with the doctors for the Kidney transplant. When
the doctors contacted other hospitals they found that a kidney is available but it would
take 6 hours for the kidney as it was to be brought from hospital situated in the
National Capital Territory.
8. Mohan had only one functioning kidney as he had already donated the other
kidney. The doctors knew that taking out the kidney would mean instant death of
Mohan. But to save the Meeras life, a team of 7 doctors took out his kidney and

transplanted it into the young girl. Mohan died and the postmortem report showed that
he died because his kidney was taken out.
9. Prakash registered the FIR against the doctors of Sant Lal Chaudhary Hospital,
Chandipur. The State of Chandipur brought prosecution against the doctors and all the
seven doctors were charged and convicted under section 302, 379, 392 and 395r/w
section 34 of the Indiana Penal Code, 1860 by the trial court. They were sentenced to
death.
10. The doctors filed an appeal before the High Court. But the High Court upheld
the decision of the trial court on 02/02/2016 and also ordered compensation of Rs. 20
lakhs to be given to Sumanby the doctors invoking the provisions of section 357 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court also ordered a compensation of Rs.
10 Lakh to be paid by the Government of UT of Chandipur under its Victim
Compensation Scheme. When the question came as to the quantum of punishment the
High Court reduced the punishment to that of life imprisonment. Then the doctors
asked for certificate under Article 134A of the Constitution of Indiana but it was
refused.
11. The Government following the High Court's order paid Rs. 10 lakhs to Suman
as per the rules of its Victim Compensation Scheme and sought to recover it from the
doctors.
12. Simultaneously, a case was instituted in the High Court under the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 as the doctors did not obey the decision of the High Court and the
court had taken this action on its own motion. The division bench of the High Court
punished them under the said act on 26/02/2016. They were to pay Rs. 2000 each and
the High Court also ordered the Medical Council to initiate disciplinary proceedings
against them terming it to be the inherent powers of the High Court given to it by the
Constitution.
13. Doctors filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court against the
judgment dated 02/02/2016 of the High Court. They raised the plea that there act was
an act of necessity. Along with, they also raised the issue that active euthanasia should
be allowed and should be held to be constitutional in cases of emergency. Thus,
indirectly they were raising a question mark on the validity of the judgment of the
Supreme Court delivered by division bench in ArunaRamachandraShanbaugv.Union
ofIndia,2011(4)SCC454. Another issue that they raised was that they should not be

bound to give any compensation to Suman.

14. Another appeal was filed against the judgment of the High Court dated
26/02/2016 by the Medical Council of India contending that the High Court does not
have any such inherent powers to direct the Medical Council to initiate disciplinary
proceedings against a doctor.
15. As both the matters included some substantial question of law, the matters
were referred to a constitutional bench of five judges and the constitutional bench
decided to hear the SLP filed by the doctors and also the appeal filed by the MCI. The
bench clubbed both the appeals and framed the issues as follows:
A. Whether Active Euthanasia should be allowed in Indiana in cases of
Emergency or in all the cases with the permission of the High Court or in such cases
as has arisen before this Court in this particular case or the verdict of this Court in
ArunaRamachandraShanbaugscase(supra)shouldbeupheld?

B. Whether in the instant case, the wife of the deceased is a victim within the
meaning of section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and whether she should
be given any compensation under section 357 or 357A of the Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973?
C. Whetherthedoctorsshouldbeorderedtopaycompensationtothewifeofthe
deceasedwherethecouplehasalreadyundergonetheperiodofjudicialseparationand
hasfiledacasefordivorcetoo?

D. Whether the High Court has inherent powers under the Constitution to order
Medical Council of India to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the doctors while
dealing with a case under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971?1
Argue from both sides.
Note:1. The laws in Indiana are pari materia with the laws in India.

1 The doctors have been punished for civil contempt. (Refer to Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971)
The term inherent powers of the High Court as used in the proposition means the powers given to it due to
its constitution.

2. The laws being applied on Union Territory of Chandipur would be same as

they are being applied on Union Territory of Chandigarh.
3. The issue regarding maintainability of SLP cannot be raised.
4. Issues other than those addressed in the proposition can be raised.
5. The provisions of the Victim Compensation Scheme of Government of UT of
Chandipur state that
Any amount paid by the Government under the order of the Court as
part of Victim Compensation Scheme may be recovered by it from the accused
person in the same manner as the execution of a decree.
6. Article 371J, a new article has been inserted:
371K Special Provisions with respect to Union Territory of
Chandipur: (1) The Union Territory of Chandipur shall have a Legislative
Assembly whose strength shall not be less than 20 members and which may
extend to a maximum of 100 members to be elected in the same manner as the
members are elected for the legislative assembly of National Capital Territory.
(2) The Union Territory of Chandipur shall also have a High Court and the
manner in which the judges are to be appointed would be same as if the judges
are being appointed for a State.