MOOT COURT
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DEHLI
UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDUSLAND,
1950.
Julia………………. (PETTIONER)
V.
UNION OF INDIA……………………. (RESPONDENT)
MEMORIAL SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE PETTIONER
1|Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 7
STATEMENT OF FACTS 8
ISSUES RAISED 10
ISSUES CONCERNED 11
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 12
ARGUMENT ADVANCED 13
PRAYER 15
2|Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AC Appeal Cases
A.I.R All India Reporters
All Indian Law Reports Allahabad series
A.P Andhra Pradesh
Art. Article
BLJ Bombay Law Journal
Bom LR Bombay Law Reporter
Cr. LJ Criminal Law Journal of India
CrPC Criminal Procedure Code
DPs Directive Policy
Edn. Edition
FRs Fundamental Rights
Guj Gujrat
Hon’ble Honorable
IPC Indian Penal Code
Jul July
Ors. Others
QBD Queen’s Bench Division (Eng)
pat Indian Law Reports Patna series
r/w Read with
S Section
SC Supreme Court
SCR Supreme Court Reporters
Sec. Section
TLR Times Law Reports (Eng)
U.P Uttar Pradesh
3|Page
u/s Under section
V. Versus
4|Page
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
LEGISLATION
1. THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION ACT, 1950.
2. MEDICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY ACT, 1971.
CASES REFERRED
1. Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration1
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India2
3. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India3
BOOKS REFERRED
1. V.N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (12TH ED., 2013).
2. DR. D.D. BASU, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (8TH ED., 2009).
3. P.M. BAKSHI, THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA, (14TH ED., 2017).
4. DR. J.N. PANDEY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (51ST ED., 2014).
5. H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (4TH ED., 2010).
6. R.S. BEDI, THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA, (10TH ED., 2013).
7. DR. S.C. KASHYAP, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (1ST ED., 2008).
8. DR. J. N. PANDEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA,54TH EDITION, 2017.
9. K D GAUR, TEXTBOOK ON INDIAN PENAL CODE, SIXTH EDITION, 2018.
1
(2009) 14 SCR 989
2
AIR 1978 SC 597
3
AIR 2018 SC 4321
5|Page
LEGAL DATABASES
WWW.YOURARTICLELIBRARY.COM
WWW.LEGALSERVICEINDIA.COM
WWW.INDIANKANOON.ORG
WWW.LAWRATO.COM
WWW.MANUPATRA.COM
WWW.INDIANCASELAWS.ORG
WWW.INDLAW.COM
WWW.JUDIC.NIC.IN
WWW.LEXISNEXIS.COM
WWW.SCCONLINE.CO.IN
WWW.WESTLAW.COM
WWW.NCBI.NLM.NIH.GOV
6|Page
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is most humbly submitted that the Respondent has appeared before this
Hon’ble Court in response to the notice sent to the Respondent with regard to
writ petition filed by the Petitioners under Article 2264of the Constitution of India.
4
Article 226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.
(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it
exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those
territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto
and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be
exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in
part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of
such person is not within those territories.
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on,
or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without-
o (a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and
o (b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order
and
furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party,
the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from
the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the
last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application
is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next
day, stand vacated.
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme
Court by clause (2) of article 32.
7|Page
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Julia Rawat was a small town girl with big dreams. She was 22 years old, a
school dropout, whose parents worked as daily wage workers in a grapes farm in
Rishikesh.
2. Despite of her humble beginnings, Julia was determined to make her dreams a
reality so she was keen to relocate to a big city. She was a bit naive and
unprepared for the challenges she would face, But she was resilient and ready to
take on the world.
3. One night, while browsing a dating site, Julia met Jignesh, an Instagram
influencer. Jignesh was charming and charismatic, and Julia was immediately
smitten. He invited her to come and stay with him in Delhi, and they quickly
began a passionate affair.
4. Their relationship was blossoming and Julia was getting everything she ever
wanted. One day she found out that she was pregnant and proposed Jignesh to
marry her. Despite her best efforts Jignesh refused to marry her but this did not
deter Julia and she was determined to make their relationship work.
5. Jignesh had other plans, he started seeing another woman named Priya but
tried to hide his affair from Julia. Julia's suspicions of Jignesh grew day by day and
they started quarrelling frequently. Julia also began to suspect that Jignesh was
involved in some illegal activities and was using his Instagram fame to cover up
such activities.
6. One day, the couple got into a heated argument and the fight quickly became
abusive and toxic. Jignesh refused to stay in the relationship and decided to
breakup with Julia. When Jignesh broke up with Julia she was already 22 weeks
pregnant.
7. Desperate and alone, Julia found herself in a very difficult situation. She was
unemployed and her family was unable to financially support her. On top of that,
she was also facing a great deal of social stigma and was ostracized by her
community.
8|Page
8. Julia was determined to keep her baby but she knew that this decision would
lead to an enormous struggle. She was in no position to financially support the
child and was anxious about the impact this situation would have on her mental
and physical health.
9. In light of all the toxic circumstances involving her Julia decided to abort her
child but when she met a licensed doctor, he informed her that unmarried
women are not permitted to have abortions under the Medical Termination of
Pregnancy Act, 1971 as amended ("MTP Act").
10. Julia decided to file a writ petition challenging Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act
and the Rule 3B of the MTP Rules which exclude unmarried women from availing
safe and legal abortions. Julia argued that the exclusion was arbitrary and
discriminatory, and that it denied unmarried women the right to make informed
choices about their reproductive health.
11. Faced with no other choice, Julia filed a case against the healthcare
department in Delhi High Court.
9|Page
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE 1. Whether this Writ Petition is maintainable or not?
ISSUE 2. Whether section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act and Rule 3B of the MTP Rules
are violative of fundamental rights of the Petitioner under Articles 14 and 21 of
the Constitution of Indusland?
ISSUE 3. Whether the liberties provided under the Medical Termination of
Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021 be considered a Privilege as against a Right
for women?
ISSUE 4. Whether Right to Reproduction recognized by the Constitution of
Indusland is being upheld in its truest form and spirit?
10 | P a g e
ISSUE CONCERNED
Whether Right to Reproduction recognized by the Constitution of
Indusland is being upheld in its truest form and spirit?
11 | P a g e
ARGUMENTS SUMMARY
Whether Right to Reproduction recognized by the Constitution of
Indusland is being upheld in its truest form and spirit?
It is humbly submitted that the access to safe and legal abortions for unmarried
women violates their fundamental right to reproductive autonomy. The right to
reproduce or not to reproduce is recognized as a facet of the right to privacy
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
That denying unmarried women the right to safe and legal abortions deprives
them of reproductive justice, which encompasses the right to have children, not
to have children, and the right to parent. In the case of Suchita Srivastava, the
Supreme Court emphasized the need to ensure reproductive justice by allowing
women to make choices related to their reproductive health without any
interference.
12 | P a g e
ARUGMENTS ADVANCED
Whether Right to Reproduction recognized by the
Constitution of Indusland is being upheld in its truest
form and spirit?
Violation of Right to Reproductive Autonomy:
It is humbly submitted that access to safe and legal abortions for unmarried
women violates their fundamental right to reproductive autonomy. The right to
reproduce or not to reproduce is recognized as a facet of the right to privacy
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the case of Suchita Srivastava v.
Chandigarh Administration5, the Supreme Court held that reproductive choice
and decisions rest solely with the woman, and the state has no right to interfere
in such decisions.
Discrimination based on Marital Status:
The MTP Act discriminate against unmarried women based on their marital
status, which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution that guarantees the right
to equality. Discrimination can be challenged if it lacks a reasonable classification
and a rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved. Excluding
unmarried women from accessing safe and legal abortions does not have a
rational basis and perpetuates discrimination.
Fulfillment of Reproductive Justice:
That denying unmarried women the right to safe and legal abortions deprives
them of reproductive justice, which encompasses the right to have children, not
to have children, and the right to parent. In the case of Suchita Srivastava, the
Supreme Court emphasized the need to ensure reproductive justice by allowing
women to make choices related to their reproductive health without any
interference.
There is violation of a legal right:
that the act of refraining the victim from abortion is the violation of her legal
right6 and fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
There are cases where the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had brought clarity
towards ensuring the rights conferred by the citizens under Article 21 7. The
termination of the pregnancy be allowed beyond the statutory bounds 8 . The
5
(2009) 9 SCC 1
6
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971 s.3
7
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597
8
The Medical Termination Of Pregnancy Act, 1971 Section 3 Sub Section 2 clause (a)&(b)
13 | P a g e
pregnancy in a way that is not natural to the society will adversely affect her
dignity of life violating Article 21 of the constitution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India has decided on various cases to grant permission to abort a child that
causes mental or physical harm to the maternal body. 9 In the case of Woman's
right to make reproductive choices is also a dimension of `personal liberty' as
understood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India10.
International Human Rights Obligations:
India is a signatory to various international conventions and treaties that
recognize the right to reproductive health, including safe and legal abortions.
These include the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
Women. Julia can argue that the provisions of the MTP Act, excluding unmarried
women from accessing safe abortions, violate India's international human rights
obligations. In the case of Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration 11 – It
was upheld a woman's right to make reproductive choices and emphasized the
need to respect reproductive autonomy and the right to privacy.
In the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India12, The Hon’ble decriminalized
consensual same-sex relations and emphasized the importance of recognizing the
rights of individuals regardless of their sexual orientation. It strengthens the
argument against discrimination based on marital status..
It is hoped that the judiciary, in this case the Delhi High Court, will recognize the
importance of protecting and promoting the rights of unmarried women to make
informed choices about their reproductive health. By striking down the
discriminatory provisions of the MTP Act, the court will not only provide Julia with
justice but also set a precedent for ensuring reproductive rights for all women in
India. This case has the potential to bring about positive changes in the legal
framework and contribute to a more inclusive and rights-based approach to
reproductive health in the country. .
9
Z v. State of Bihar AIR 2017 SC 3908
10
Suchita Srivastava vs Chandigarh Administration (2009) 9 SCC 1
11
(2009) 9 SCC 1
12
AIR 2018 SC 4321
14 | P a g e
PRAYER
1. In the light of the argument advanced and authorities citied and the
question presented, we humbly pray before the Hon’ble court to Section
3(2)(b) of the MTP Act is Violative of Article 14, 21 of constitution of India.
2. Allow unmarried females to decide about their body and give them right to
abort the foetus.
3. Any such other order in the interest of justice may be passed.
AND/OR
PASS ANY ORDER THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE. AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE
COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
SD/
Counsel for Petitioner
15 | P a g e
