XXXR

IN THE

HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

AT NEW DELHI

Writ Petition No. ___/2018

Petition Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 read with Rule 7 of order

XXXV of Supreme Court Rules 2013

IN THE MATTER OF

Md. NAZIR………….....................................................................................PETITIONER

v.

REPUBLIC OF INDIA ………………………….................................................RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION .................................................................................................. vi

I. WHETHER THE EUTHANASIA IN THE CASE AT HAND IS ACTIVE OR PASSIVE

ETHUNASIA? ........................................................................................................................... vi

II. WHETHER ACTIVE EUTHANASIA IS PERMITTED UNDER FOURCORNER OF

CONSTITUTION OR NOT? .................................................................................................... vi

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

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ........................................................................................................ 1

PRAYER ......................................................................................................................................... 3

ii
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Aruna Ramchandran shaunbaug vs Unionof India (2011) 4 SCC 524. .......................................... 1

Gyan kaur vs State of Punjab1996 AIR 946 SCC(2) 648. .............................................................. 2

Maneka Gandhi vs union of India 1978 AIR 597 1978 SCR (2) 621............................................. 2

Statutes

Article 21 Of the Constitution of India,1950. ................................................................................. 1

Article 32 of the Constitution of india ,1950 .................................................................................. 2

iii
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Mr. Mohd Nazir is the citizen of Union of India. He has Eight Children Out of six are suffering

from rare neuro disorder.

II

In the course of fact Mohammad Nazir said that he is unable to afford treatment of his children

and has written to the district collectorate requesting that he should be allowed to end the lives of

his kids ,aged between 8 to 18 years.He is a daily wage labourer who earns 5000 , per month

says that he can not afford the expensive treatment and is therefore contemplating the extreme

step for his children.

II

Mr. Mohammad Nazir has seeks permission to end the life of his childrens

Hence, the present suit before this honourable court.

iv
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The respondent most humbly submits that this Honourable Supreme Court of India has the

requisite jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate the present matter under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India and the Supreme Court Rules.

All of which is urged in detail in the written submission and is submitted most respectfully.

v
 ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION

I. WHETHER THE EUTHANASIA IN THE CASE AT HAND IS ACTIVE OR PASSIVE

ETHUNASIA?

II. WHETHER ACTIVE EUTHANASIA IS PERMITTED UNDER FOURCORNER OF

CONSTITUTION OR NOT?

vi
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

WHETHER THE EUTHANASIA IN THE CASE AT HAND IS ACTIVE PASSIVE

ETHUNASIA?

Article 21 of the constitution of India in the light of ethunasia does not provide Right to die”

said provison does not passes the test of reasonability or rational criterion. As this case involves

the rare neuro disorder and petitioner is unable to afford the expense of treatment though

petitioner can not be granted the order on mere economic inability as constituion doesn’t provide

any reason to die under the ambit of Art.21.Right to life’ is a natural right embodied in Article 21

but euthanasia is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and , therefore incompatible and

inconsistent with the concept of ‘Right to life’.It is the duty of the state to provide care and not to

harm patients .In the broad elaboration of Maneka Gandhi case supreme court reads Article 21

along with the directive principles of state policy and if euthanasia is legalised ,then there is a

grave apprehension that the state may refuse to invest in health (working towards Right to life).

Hence in a welfare state there should not be any role of ethunasia in any form

vii
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

WHETHER THE EUTHANASIA IN CASE AT HAND IS ACTIVE OR PASSIVE

ETHUNASIA?

Article 211 of the constitution of India guarantees Right to life and Personal Liberty. It states

that” No person shall be deprived of his life or Personal liberty except the Procedure established

by law.It further states that Right to life doesn’t include Right to die.Right to life is a phrase that

describes the belief that a human being has the right to live ,particularly that a human being has

the right not to be killed by another human being. Hence active euthanasia and assited sucide are

illegal.In the case of Aruna Ramchandran shaunbaug vs Unionof India2 .Supreme court also

determines the condition when a person can be considered in the state of vegetative state and

can be allowed to right to die:

Test to determine for the case of vegetative state-

failure of cardiopulmonary function vis-a –vis brain death –Inadequacy of cardiopulmonary test

in the wake of scientific development through which heartbeats and respiration can now be

revived.-Death must now be understood as irreversible and total failure of all parts of brain –

cerebrum cerebellum and brainstem .In the case of childrens of Mohammad Nazir though he is

1
Article 21 Of the Constitution of India,1950.
2
Aruna Ramchandran shaunbaug vs Unionof India (2011) 4 SCC 524.

1
suffering from rare neuro disorder but not in the state of brain dead or on life support system so

permission to do ethunasia will amount to active ethunasia which is illegal

WHETHER THE ACTIVE ETHUNASIA IS PERMITTED UNDER FOURCORNER OF

CONSTITUTION OR NOT?

This petition can also be dismissed on the short ground that under Article 323 of the constitution

of India the petitioner has to prove the violation of fundamental right and it has been held by the

constitution bench decision of the supreme court in the case of Gyan kaur vs State of Punjab4

that the Right to life guranteed under Article 21 of the Constituion doesn’t include Right to die.it

further states that ‘indian constitution did not include Right to die’ or Right to be killed ‘.The

right to die with human dignity can not be construed to include within its ambit ‘The right to

die’if any ,is inherently inconsistent with the right to life as is death with life.

Since Maneka Gandhi vs union of India5 Art.21 has been made multi- dimensional .The

honorable supreme court has asserted that Art.21 is not only read with fundamental right but also

along with Directive principles of state poilicy .so mere economic inability to not bear the

medical expenses can not be a valid reason of taking life of an living person.

3
Article 32 of the Constitution of india ,1950
4
Gyan kaur vs State of Punjab1996 AIR 946 SCC(2) 648.
5
Maneka Gandhi vs union of India 1978 AIR 597 1978 SCR (2) 621.

2
 PRAYER

Therefore, in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it

is most humbly prayed before this Honourable Supreme Court of Republic of India that it may be

pleased to:

1. Dismiss the petition

And pass any other order in favour of the Respondent which this Court may deem fit in the ends

of justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Date: Counsel for the respondent

August 20, 2018 S/d__________