Moot Proposition

1. In the year 2023, Sneha Singh, a 25-year-old research scholar at the University of
Metrolaya, is living in a live-in relationship with Rohan Malhotra, a 29-year-old tech
entrepreneur for seven years. They live in the urban city of Metrolaya, in the state of Indira
Pradesh, Indiana, a region known for its conservative stance on social issues despite the
rise of modern lifestyles in urban pockets. Their relationship has faced significant societal
backlash, including threats from neighbors and disapproval from Sneha ' s landlord, who
has repeatedly tried to evict them, citing “immoral conduct.”

2. In early March 2023, Sneha learns that she is pregnant. Although the pregnancy is
unplanned, the couple decides to wait before making a decision about the future of the
pregnancy. While Rohan suggests exploring all options due to their career commitments
and the legal complications of live-in relationships, Sneha initially leans towards keeping
the pregnancy, hoping it might bring stability to their uncertain relationship. However, she
remains ambivalent about how the pregnancy will impact her aspirations of pursuing her
career.

3. On July 15, 2023, as part of routine pre-natal care, Sneha’s medical details are
automatically logged into the state’s AI-based pregnancy monitoring system used by
Metrolaya Hospital, “MatriSuraksha AI” which aids in diagnosis. During this period, a
routine pre-natal diagnostic test reveals severe fetal anomalies, including anencephaly and
additional heart defects that would require multiple invasive surgeries. Doctors
unanimously agree that the fetus faces significant challenges to survival which are
uncertain. Additionally, they warn that continuing the pregnancy poses risks to Sneha’s
health, including the possibility of uterine rupture and damage to her reproductive system.
(As attached in Annexure -1)

1
4. Upon receiving this diagnosis, Sneha and Rohan decide to terminate the pregnancy on 15th
August, 2023. Consequently, the couple went to the hospital to seek an abortion.
Accordingly, Medical Board constituted, after a thorough evaluation, concluded that while
the fetus faces severe challenges to survival, Sneha’s case does not qualify under the
'special circumstances' defined by the law.

5. With time running out, Sneha and Rohan file a writ petition in the High Court of Indira
Pradesh, seeking urgent permission to terminate the pregnancy on the grounds of bodily
autonomy and mental and physical health risks. The High Court constitutes a Medical
Expert Panel to examine Sneha’s condition and provide a report. (As attached in Annexure
- 3)

6. Discrepancies emerge in the Medical Panel’s findings. An independent expert panel later
highlights that Sneha’s psychological condition was inadequately assessed, with no mental
health specialist present during the evaluation, despite her documented symptoms of severe
anxiety and depression. The dissenting members address potential complications if the
pregnancy were to continue, while the majority prioritize the fetus's right to life.

7. During the court proceedings, the Indira Human Rights Commission (IHRC) files a suo
motu intervention report, raising significant questions about the legal framework governing
abortion which inter-alia includes -

i. The IHRC argues that the 20-week limit under the MTP Act is arbitrary and violates
women’s right to bodily autonomy under Article 21. The report highlights that
women are often forced into judicial interventions, causing delays that
disproportionately affect their health and well-being.

ii. It also points to systemic failures in India’s healthcare system, such as inadequate
access to prenatal diagnostic testing in public hospitals, leading to delayed detection
of fetal anomalies.

8. The state government of Indira Pradesh opposes Sneha’ s petition, arguing that the MTP
Act is carefully designed to balance maternal rights and fetal rights. The government
emphasizes that:

2
 i. Allowing termination at this stage would infringe upon the “right to life” of the
fetus under Article 21.

ii. The state’s responsibility as a welfare institution requires it to regulate reproductive

iii. Loosening abortion restrictions might lead to misuse of the law, particularly in
regions where female feticide is still a significant problem.

9. Public reaction to the case is polarizing. Women’s rights organizations such as “Unity Act”
and “Noble Voice” support Sneha’s plea, highlighting the constitutional violation of her
autonomy and dignity, while conservative groups file intervention petitions opposing the
termination. These groups argue that granting relief would -

i. Undermine societal values by prioritizing individual autonomy over collective

ii. Encourage live-in relationships, which they claim threaten the traditional institution
of marriage.

10. Women’s rights organizations, including the “Association for Gender Justice,” rally behind
Sneha, arguing that her case represents a landmark battle for bodily autonomy and
reproductive justice. They emphasize that the law must recognize a woman’s right to make
decisions about her own body, particularly in cases of non-viable pregnancies.

11. A parallel controversy erupts when it is revealed that the state government has deployed
AI-based surveillance systems branded as “Jeevika AI” to track pregnancies in hospitals
across the region, ostensibly to prevent female feticide. However, these systems
misclassify Sneha’s pregnancy as a potential case of illegal sex determination, adding
bureaucratic hurdles to her approval process.

12. Investigative reports reveal that Jeevika AI suffers from algorithmic biases due to the
datasets it relies on. The system disproportionately targets unmarried women, live-in
couples, and those from marginalized socio-economic groups, as historical biases in
training data categorize them as high-risk. This bias place unwarranted scrutiny on women

3
 who seek late-stage diagnostic tests or infrequent medical care, common occurrences for
those with limited healthcare access. The algorithm misinterprets these patterns as
indicative of intent for sex-selective abortion, creating delays that obstruct urgent medical
decisions.

13. Adding to the controversy is the revelation that PredictiveCare Pvt. Ltd., the private
company that developed Jeevika AI, has faced similar criticisms for deploying the same
technology in counterterrorism surveillance abroad, where it was accused of racial
profiling. Leaked documents reveal that PredictiveCare’s financial incentives tied to the
program prioritize detection rates over accuracy, leading to system-wide misdirection. The
AI system disproportionately focuses on detecting illegal sex determination while
neglecting critical maternal health issues, creating systemic barriers for women like Sneha
and deepening the digital divide in healthcare, where wealthy patients bypass scrutiny
through private facilities.

14. During the proceedings, investigative journalists uncover troubling links between
Metrolaya General Hospital and a commercial surrogacy network exploiting loopholes in
the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.

15. During the proceedings, the couple’s live-in relationship becomes a focal point of the
debate. Opponents argue that their status as an unmarried couple complicates the moral
dimensions of the case, as such relationships lack legal recognition. Women’s rights groups
counter that this argument perpetuates stigma against unmarried women and undermines
their right to make decisions independent of societal judgment.

16. The High Court faces a constitutional conundrum, with the following key issues at stake:

i. Whether the 20-week restriction under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy

ii. Whether the legal framework sufficiently safeguards the rights and welfare of
children born out of live-in relationships?

4
 iii. Whether the state’s deployment of AI-based surveillance systems, such as
“MatriSuraksha AI” and “Jeevika AI” violates constitutional privacy rights and
other legal rights of a person?

iv. Whether judicial oversight in abortion decisions unjustifiably infringes on a

v. Whether the findings and conclusions of AI-based systems, such as Jeevika AI,
are reliable and legally admissible as evidence in medical and judicial
proceedings?

17. In its final days, the case sparked nationwide protests. While some hail it as a landmark
battle for women’s reproductive rights, others see it as an existential challenge to the state’s
moral authority. The IHRC’s intervention report is tabled before Parliament, adding further
scrutiny to India’s abortion laws and the broader implications of the High Court’s
impending judgment.

Disclaimer: The laws of Indiana are pari materia to the laws of India. This moot proposition is a
work of fiction created solely for academic and educational purposes. The characters, events, and
entities mentioned herein are entirely fictional, and any resemblance to actual persons, events, or
organizations is purely coincidental.

5
Annexure 1 - Diagnostic Test Results

6
7
8
Annexure 2 – Medical Board Report by the State

9
10
Annexure 3 - Medical Experts Report on Sneha Singh’s Case by the
High Court

11
12
13
Annexure 4 - AI-Generated Report from Proxima AI

14
15
Annexure 5 - Indiana Human Rights Commission (IHRC)
Intervention Report Summary

16
17
18
Annexure 6 - Email of Anonymous Communication of Surrogacy
Practices in Metrolaya General Hospital

19
20