NAME OF THE COLLEGE – NEW LAW COLLEGE

NAME OF THE UNIVERSITY- BHARATI VIDYAPEETH DEEMED UNIVERSITY

NAME OF THE PARTICIPANTS-

SPEAKER 1 – ANUSHKA BAHUGUNA

SPEAKER 2 – JIGYASA OJHA

RESEARCHER – AKANKSHA BAIBHAV

 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TEAM CODE:

17th “SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION”

Before THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

(Under Article 132(1) of Constitution of India )
Case no. _______/2022

IN THE MATTER OF

A
(Petitioner)
v/s
Secretary of Health and Family Department
(Respondent)

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

2
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... 3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.......................................................................................... 4

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................ 5

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ....................................................................................................... 6

STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT .............................................................................................. 7

I- WHETHER THE RULE 3B OF THE MTP RULE IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14

OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION SINCE IT EXCLUDED AN UNMARRIED WOMAN
& AMP; DEPRIVES HER OF ACCESS TO SAFE & AMP; LEGAL ABORTION? ............. 7

1.1 Rule 3B of MTP Rules excluding unmarried women is violative of article 14 of the Indian
constitution................................................................................................................................. 8

1.2 Rule 3B of MTP Rules deprives her of access to safe and legal abortion ........................... 9

II- WHETHER THE DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO ABORTION VIOLATES THE RIGHT
TO PRIVACY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA? ........ 11

2.1 The denial of the right to abortion violates the right to lead a healthy life of a woman .... 11

2.2 Bodily autonomy & safe abortion, a right under Article 21. ............................................. 13

2.3 Every women has a right to live in dignity ........................................................................ 14

2.4 Transformative nature of our constitution ......................................................................... 15

PRAYER .................................................................................................................................. 17

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 18

3
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioners have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 132(1)1
which provides for the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in appeals from High
Courts in certain cases.

1
(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in a State,
whether in a civil, criminal or other proceeding, if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution.
(2) Where the High Court has refused to give such a certificate, the Supreme Court may, if it is satisfied that the
case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution, grant special leave to appeal
from such judgment, decree or final order.
(3) Where such a certificate is given, or such leave is granted, any party in the case may appeal to the Supreme
Court not only on the ground that any such question as aforesaid has been wrongly decided, but also on any other
ground.
Explanation For the purposes of this article, the expression "final order" includes an order deciding an issue which,
if decided in favour of the appellant, would be sufficient for the final disposal of the case.

4
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A, a 24-year-old unmarried woman from Banipur who had three sisters and a mother, lived
alone. She fell in love with B, a 28-year-old man, and they had a live-in relationship.

A became pregnant during their cohabitation. As a result, A asked B to marry her to legitimize
their child. Despite A's repeated requests, B refused to marry her.

A, who was already burdened by responsibilities, did not want to amplify her problems by
becoming a single mother.

A filed a petition in the High Court seeking permission to terminate her 22-week pregnancy
out of the consensual relationship.

The High Court denied her request based on the provisions of the Medical Termination of
Pregnancy Act 1961, which allowed only married women to have abortions after 20 weeks.

She was not covered by any clauses in the MTP Rules, 2003 due to mental anguish, rape, and
health complications.

She approached the Supreme Court on grounds of social stigma & harassment about unmarried
single parents & continuation of unwanted pregnancy as it would involve a risk of the grave &
immense injury to her mental, Physical, social, and financial health.

5
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

-I-

Whether the Rule 3B of the MTP rule is violative of Article 14 of the Indian constitution
since it excluded an unmarried woman & amp; deprives her of access to safe & legal
abortion?

-II-

Whether the denial of Rights to abortion violates the right to privacy under the provisions of
the Constitution of India?

6
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT

I- WHETHER THE RULE 3B OF THE MTP RULE IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE

14 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION SINCE IT EXCLUDED AN
UNMARRIED WOMAN & AMP; DEPRIVES HER OF ACCESS TO SAFE &
AMP; LEGAL ABORTION?

1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that Rule 3B of the
MTP rule is violative of Article 14 of the Indian constitution since it excluded an
unmarried woman and deprives her of access to safe and legal abortion.
2. It is humbly submitted that Rule 3B of the MTP Rules deprives a woman of access to
safe and legal abortion and is ultra vires of Art 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.2
3. The United States Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade3 that a woman's right to choose
whether or not to terminate her pregnancy was protected by the constitution. The Court
further held in Doe v. Bolton4 that a state may not unduly burden a woman's
fundamental right to abortion by prohibiting or significantly limiting access to the
means of carrying out her decision.
4. In X v. The Principal Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department & Anr,5 The
petitioner was an unmarried woman who approached the court to seek permission for
abortion of her 22-weeks pregnancy which resulted in her consensual relationship. The
petitioner prayed before the court to include an unmarried woman within the ambit of
the Rule 3B6 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules 2003 for termination of
pregnancy under clause (b) of sub-section (2) Section 3 of the MTP Act, for a period of
up to twenty-four weeks. The court in this case held that insofar as Rule 3B excludes
an unmarried woman is violative of Article 147 of the Constitution. Similarly, in the
present case, the petitioner is an unmarried pregnant woman who wants to abort her
pregnancy.
5. In the present case, the petitioner draws on the established principles that for the
curtailment of fundamental rights as laid out by the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi

2
Xyz vs UOI (2019) 3 BOM CR 400
3
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
4
Doe v. Bolton 410 U.S. 179 (1973).
5
X v. The Principal Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department & Anr,2022 SCC Online SC 1321
6
MTP RULES, 2003, Rule 3B.
7
INDIA CONST., 1950, Art. 14.

7
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

v. Union of India,8 To curtail a fundamental right, a law must be duly enacted, it must
be reasonable as per Article 14, and it must be proportional9 in that the means of the
law must justify the ends it seeks to achieve.10 In this case, the goal of the MTP Act is
to reduce maternal mortality and to guarantee safe abortions which can’t be achieved
with the exclusion of unmarried women.
6. The same principle was used in the landmark judgment of R.D Shetty v. International
Airport Authority11, it was held by the court that “The doctrine of classification is not
a paraphrase of Article 14 nor is the objective and end of that Article. It is legislative
or executive action in question which is arbitrary and therefore constituting the
denial of equity.”
The MTP Act excludes unmarried women from the ambit of Rule 3B can be termed
arbitrary action which denies the right to equality enshrined under Art 14 of the Indian
constitution.12
7. Section 8 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 195613 stipulates that any
female Hindu regardless of her marital status can take a son or daughter in adoption.
8. Sections 7 and 8 of the Guardian and Wards Act 189014 allow for persons to apply for
an order of guardianship without making any distinction between men or women,
married or unmarried. This shows that marital status is not the ground for having a child
and vice versa it should also not be the ground for not having a child i.e., abortion.
9. The Maternity Benefit Act 1961 was enacted to provide maternity benefits to women
employed in any establishment. In terms of Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act 1961,
the payment of maternity benefits is extended to all women (including unmarried
women).

1.1 Rule 3B of MTP Rules excluding unmarried women is violative of article 14 of the
Indian constitution

10. It is humbly submitted that Rule 3B of MTP Rules specifies the women eligible for the
termination of pregnancy up to 24 weeks which excludes unmarried women. Insofar

8
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597
9
D.S Nakara v. union of India AIR 1983 SC 130
10
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538
11
R.D Shetty v. International Airport Authority (1979) 3 SCC 489
12
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib AIR 1931 SC 487
13
HINDU ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956, Sec. 8
14
GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT 1890 Sec. 7 and 8

8
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

as it excludes an unmarried woman, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as

there is no “rational nexus” and “intelligible differentia”15 behind the such distinction.
In Air India v. Nargesh Meerza16 Air India Employee Service Regulations was
challenged because they violated Articles 14, 15,17 and 16.18 The said regulations
resulted in a considerable amount of disparity between the salary and promotional
avenues of male and female in-flight cabin crew members. Similarly, MTP rules violate
article 14 as it discriminates between married and unmarried women.19
11. Court Recognises Indirect Discrimination & Strikes Down Army’s Gender
Discriminatory Promotion Practices in The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita
Puniya20 the Supreme Court held that women cannot be categorically denied PC
positions. And the Armed Forces cannot have gender-discriminatory hiring/recruitment
practices. Similarly, in MTP rules there is indirect discrimination between married and
unmarried women in the matter of abortion.

1.2 Rule 3B of MTP Rules deprives her of access to safe and legal abortion

12. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the MTP Amendment Act 2021 indicates that
the statute is primarily concerned with increasing access to safe and legal abortions to
reduce maternal mortality and morbidity. The increase in the upper gestational limit for
terminating pregnancies under “certain specified conditions” was considered necessary
to fulfil the goal of ensuring “dignity, autonomy, confidentiality, and justice for women
who need to terminate the pregnancy.”
The Act of 2021 talks about the phrase ‘married woman’ which was replaced by ‘any
woman’ and the word ‘husband’ was replaced by ‘partner’. But evidently, there is a gap
in the law: while Section 3 travels beyond conventional relationships based on
marriage, Rule 3B of the MTP Rules does not envisage a situation involving unmarried
women but recognizes other categories of women such as divorcees, widows, minors,
disabled and mentally ill women and survivors of sexual assault or rape. There is no
basis to deny unmarried women the right to medically terminate the pregnancy when
the same choice is available to other categories of women.

15
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar AIR 1952 SC 123
16
Air India v. Nergesh Meerza AIR 1981 SC 1829.
17
INDIA CONST., 1950 Art. 15.
18
INDIA CONST., 1950 Art. 16.
19
Randhir Singh v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 879.
20
The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya (2020) 7 SCC 469.

9
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

13. In Muskan v. State of Rajasthan21 the Rajasthan high court said, “If the child in the
womb is allowed to be born, his/her mental agony will be no less. He/she will always
be reminded of the petitioner’s past and the fact that his/her paternity is not known
will continue to throb his/her heart and hammer his/her mind and soul.”22 Similarly
in our case depriving A of safe and legal abortion may cause the petitioner remind of
her past which is a threat to her mental health.23
14. In Siddhi Vishwanath Shelar v. State of Maharashtra24, a 23-year-old petitioner
contended that she was not mentally ready to be an unwed mother and sought the
termination of her pregnancy of approximately twenty-three weeks. The Petitioner was
engaged in a consensual relationship but had since parted ways from her partner, and
thus wanted to terminate the unwanted pregnancy. While permitting the abortion, the
High Court of Bombay observed that insisting upon the continuance of the pregnancy
would involve a grave injury to the petitioner’s health. The High Court took note of the
woman’s submissions regarding her actual and foreseeable environment. In our case, if
A is insisted upon the continuance of pregnancy it may lead to grave injury to A’s
health.25
15. Unsafe abortions are a leading but preventable cause of maternal mortality and
morbidity unsafe abortions continue to be the third leading cause of maternal mortality,
and close to eight women in India die each day due to causes related to unsafe abortions.
A study published in the BMJ Global Health points out grim statistics of unsafe
abortions in India: between the years 2007 and 2011, an estimated 67% of abortions
carried out were classified as unsafe.26
16. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that Rule 3B of the MTP
Rules 2003, is violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India, as it excludes an
unmarried woman & deprives her access to safe & legal abortion.27

21
Muskan v. State of Rajasthan Special Leave to Appeal Crl. No. 3193/2014
22
State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar, AIR 1991 SC 207
23
Nand Kishore Sharma and Ors. vs Union of India AIR 2006 RAJ 166
24
Siddhi Vishwanath Shelar v. State of Maharashtra WRIT PETITION (L.) NO.21977 OF 2021
25
Pratibha Gaur v. Government of State of NCT of Delhi, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5573
26
Yokoe R, Rowe R, Choudhury SS, et al. Unsafe abortion and abortion-related death among 1.8 million women
in India. BMJ Glob Health 2019;4: e00149. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001491
27
R v. State of Haryana 2016 SCC 183

10
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

II- WHETHER THE DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO ABORTION VIOLATES THE

RIGHT TO PRIVACY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA?

1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the denial of Rights to abortion
violates the right to privacy under provisions of the Constitution of India. In the
case of X v. The Principal Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department &, Anr
it was rightly observed the that right to abortion is a right under Art 21 of the Indian
constitution.28
2. Section 3 of the MTP Act,29 put hurdles in the way of the pregnant woman to
terminate her pregnancy which violates her fundamental right under articles 14 and
21.30
3. In a case of Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator31, Union Territory of Delhi
and others as follows:
Article 21 requires that no one shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
by procedure established by law and this procedure must be reasonable, fair and just
and not arbitrary, whimsical or fanciful. The law of preventive detention has
therefore now to pass the test not only for Article 22, but also of Article 21 and if
the constitutional validity of any such law is challenged, the court would have to
decide whether the procedure laid down by such law for depriving a person of his
personal liberty is reasonable, fair and just.

2.1 The denial of the right to abortion violates the right to healthy life of a woman

4. It is humbly submitted that the denial of the right to abortion violates the right to
lead a healthy life of a woman, which further violates her right to life under Article
2132 and is ultra vires33 of the constitution.34 If a woman is forced to continue a

28
State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar AIR 1991 SC 207
29
MTP ACT, 2021, Sec. 3.
30
Poornima Devu Mandavkar vs UOI AIR 2019
31
Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator 1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516
32
INDIA CONST., 1950, Art. 21.
33
Snehal Ravikant Mohite vs UOI Writ Petition No. 10835 OF 2018
34
Occupational Health and Safety Association v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 547

11
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

pregnancy against her will it is not only dangerous for her physical health but also
her mental health.35
5. In Sarmishta Chakrabortty and Anr v. Union of India and ors36, the Supreme Court
was concerned with a pregnancy that had advanced beyond 20 weeks. The Medical
Board had opined that the pregnant mother is at threat of severe mental injury if the
pregnancy is continued. Similarly, in the present case, the petitioner will suffer from
a severe mental injury due to the social stigma of unmarried parenthood, if the
pregnancy is continued.37
6. In A v. Union of India38, the Supreme Court was concerned with pregnancy which
had advanced to the 26th or the 27th week. The Medical Board/Committee, upon
evaluation, had reported that the continuation of pregnancy can pose severe mental
injury to the petitioner, and no additional risk to the petitioner's life is involved if
she is allowed to undergo termination of her pregnancy.
7. In Dietric v. Northampton39 it was held that “failing any precedent that conferred
upon the child a prenatal cause of action in tort, it was held that it was a clear
and incontrovertible principle of common law that the unborn child was not a
‘person’ under the law but a part of the mother with no separate entity or
existence before birth.”40 Reproductive rights are the natural rights of women and
are necessary for their health and well-being. Therefore, the petitioner should not
be deprived of her natural rights.
8. In Mamta Verma v. Union of India and ors.41, the Supreme Court was concerned
with a pregnancy that had advanced into the 25th week. The Medical Board had
opined that the patient wants the pregnancy to be terminated as the foetus is not
likely to survive. It is causing immense mental agony to her. In the present case, A
being denied for abortion and forced to continue her pregnancy against her will may
cause her immense mental agony.
9. In Sidra Mehboob Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra42, the High Court of Bombay
permitted the petitioner to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy on the

35
Pt. Paramananda Katara v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2039.
36
Sarmishta Chakrabortty and anr v. Union of India and ors, (2018) 13 SCC 339.
37
Sheetal shankar salvi v. UOI (2018) 11 SCC 339
38
A v. Union of India (2018) 14 SCC 75,
39
Dietric v. Northampton 138 Mass. 14 (1884)
40
Rakesh Kumar v. Prem Lal, 1996 ACJ 980
41
Mamta Verma v. Union of India and ors. (2018) 14 SCC 289.
42
Sidra Mehboob Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra Writ Petition (L) No. 15599 of 2021

12
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ground that compelling her to continue with her unwanted pregnancy would be
oppressive, and would likely cause a grave injury to her mental health.
The petitioner, a victim of domestic violence, had approached the court to allow
her to undergo an abortion as she pleaded that she did not want to raise a child in
the absence of financial and emotional support from her husband; and raising a child
on her own would be burdensome. The High Court observed that the “mental state
of a person is a continuum with good mental health being at one end and diagnosable
mental illness at the opposite end.
A, being an unmarried woman with 3 sisters and an old mother is already
burdensome with lots of financial and emotional pressure, in this situation forcing
her to raise a child is not only likely to cause a grave injury to her mental health but
also financial health.

2.2 Bodily autonomy & safe abortion, a right under Article 21.

10. It is humbly submitted that the denial of the right to abortion violates the right to
bodily autonomy under article 21 of the Indian constitution as well said in Justice
K.S. Puttaswamy,43 it was stated that “the decision of a woman to procreate or
abstain from procreating is as a facet of her right to lead a life with dignity and
the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. Privacy of the body
entitles an individual to the integrity of the physical aspects of personhood.”
Privacy as a right encapsulates bodily autonomy, integrity, and dignity within it.44
Privacy plays an important role in facilitating women’s reproductive decision-
making. Values derived from a right to privacy such as confidentiality45 of medical
records, doctor-patient confidentiality,46 and non-insistence of spousal consent can
all potentially contribute to more effective access to safe abortion.
11. In Suchita Srivastava v Chandigarh Administration47, this Court has recognized that
a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy is a dimension of Article 21 of the
Constitution: There is no doubt that a woman's right to make reproductive choices
is also a dimension of “personal liberty” as understood under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.

43
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr v. Union of India and Ors AIR (2017) 10 SCC 1.
44
Joseph Shine v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 4898
45
PUCL v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 568.
46
Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 51 Cal. 3d 120.
47
Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, 3 (2009) 9 SCC 1.

13
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

12. In S. Khusboo v. Kanniammal48 “Live-in relationships have been recognized by the

Court”. It was observed:
While there can be no doubt that in India, marriage is an important social institution,
we must also keep our minds open to the fact that there are certain individuals or
groups who do not hold the same view. To be sure, there are some indigenous
groups within our country wherein sexual relations outside the marital setting are
accepted as a normal occurrence. Even in the societal mainstream, there are a
significant number of people who see nothing wrong in engaging in premarital sex.
Notions of social morality are inherently subjective and criminal law cannot be used
as a means to unduly interfere with the domain of personal autonomy. Morality and
criminality are not co-extensive.49
13. The right to reproductive autonomy and to life with dignity are also available to
minor girls. In Independent Thought v. Union of India50, the Supreme Court
recognised minor girls’ reproductive autonomy and right to bodily integrity and
noted that, “[t]he discussion on the bodily integrity of a girl child and the
reproductive choices available to her is important only to highlight that she
cannot be treated as a commodity having no say over her body”.
14. In Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra51, the High Court of Bombay correctly held
that compelling a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy violates a woman’s
bodily integrity, aggravates her mental trauma, and has a deleterious effect on the
mental health of the woman because of the immediate social, financial and other
consequences flowing from the pregnancy.52

2.3 Every woman has a right to live in dignity

15. It is the duty of the State not only to protect the human dignity but to facilitate it by
taking positive steps in that direction. No exact definition of human dignity exists.
It refers to the intrinsic value of every human being, which is to be respected. It
cannot be taken away. It cannot be given. It simply is. Every human being has
dignity by virtue of his existence.53

48
S. Khusboo v. Kanniammal (2010) 5 SCC 600
49
Indra Sarma v. VKV Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755
50
Independent Thought v UOI (2017) 10 SCC 800
51
Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra 2017 Cri LJ 218.
52
Meera Santosh Pal v. Union of India (2017) 3 SCC 462
53
M.Nagaraj & Others v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212

14
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

16. The Supreme Court has held "that when dignity is lost, life goes into oblivion."54
The right to human dignity has many elements. First and foremost, human dignity
is the dignity of each human being "as a human being". Another element is that
human dignity is infringed if a person's life, physical or mental welfare is harmed.
It is in this sense torture, humiliation, forced labour, etc. all infringe on human
dignity. In the case of Mehmood Nayyar Azam vs. State of Chhattisgarh55 It was
stated that “any kind of torture, inhuman, or degrading treatment should fall within
the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution.” 56In our case as the petitioner is denied
the right to abortion, compelling her to continue her pregnancy is a kind of torture
which infringes the petitioner right to live with dignity.
17. In Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhattisgarh57, “it was ruled that violation of the
woman’s statutory rights amounted to mental and psychological harassment,
which not only could cause distress but also impact the dignity of the woman.”
18. In the case of Ramesh Rathod v. State58 , The minor was represented by her father
to seek termination before the Hon’ble High Court. The pregnant minor’s mental
health would be harmed if the pregnancy was continued, according to medical
opinion. While the Court allowed the abortion, it did so with the understanding that
the minor girl had a say in the pregnancy. The right to make one’s own decisions
could not be taken away irrespective of the mother’s age. The Court had further
observed that the legislation on abortion has also broadened the definition of MTP
by adding “damage” to mental health, in addition to bodily harm. Despite the fact
that the pregnancy was the consequence of physical abuse, the survivor’s decision
had to be supported. In our case, the petitioner will suffer damage to her mental
health in case of denial to her right of abortion.

2.4 Transformative nature of our constitution

19. In Navtej Singh Johar’s case59 , this Court emphasized the transformative nature of
our Constitution. Transformative constitutionalism promotes and engenders
societal change by ensuring that every individual is capable of enjoying the life and

54
Sudha Sandeep Devgirkr vs UOI (2018) 13 SCC 339
55
Mehmood Nayyar Azam vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 8 SCC 1
56
Shabnam v. Union of India 2015 SCC OnLine SC 484
57
Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 8 SCC 1.
58
Ramesh Rathod v. State Criminal Appeal No 422 of 2021
59
Navtej Singh Johar vs UOI AIR 2018 SC 4321.

15
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

liberties guaranteed under the Constitution.60 This Court observed that

transformative constitutionalism places a duty on the judiciary to "ensure and
uphold the supremacy of the Constitution, while at the same time ensuring that a
sense of transformation is ushered constantly and endlessly in the society by
interpreting and enforcing the Constitution as well as other provisions of the law in
consonance with the avowed object."
20. In Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse61 this Court reaffirmed that the law should
be interpreted in terms of the changing needs of the times and circumstances. A.K.
Sikri, J. speaking for a two-judge Bench of this Court, observed that “courts must
bridge the gap between law and society by advancing a purposive interpretation of
statutes.”
21. Union of India vs. Raghubir Singh62. In this case, the Court noted that “law must
not remain static but move ahead with the times keeping in mind the social
context.”

60
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerela, AIR 1973 SC 1461.
61
Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) 1 SCC 188.
62
Union of India vs. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933

16
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA MAY BE PLEASED,

1. To DECLARE Rule 3B of MTP Rules as violative of article 14 of the Indian constitution.

2. To HOLD that the denial of the right to abortion is violative of the right to privacy under the
provisions of the constitution of India and permit the Petitioner to terminate her ongoing
pregnancy through registered medical practitioners at any approved private or government
Centre or Hospital as her relief will be infructuous after that as the pregnancy will be of around
24 Weeks or more by time.

AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE
COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY, AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE. FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER DUTY BOUND
SHALL. ALL OF WHICH IS HUMBLY PRAYED FOR AND SUBMITTED.

17
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CASES

A v. Union of India (2018) 14 SCC 75……………….…………………….…….……….….11

Air India v. Nergesh Meerza AIR 1981 SC 1829………………………………………………9

Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib AIR 1981 SC 487……………………………………….……….8

Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) 1 SCC 188………………….…………….............14

D.S Nakara v. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 130……………………………………………….8

Doe v. Bolton 410 U.S. 179 (1973) ……………………………………………………………7

Dietric v. Northampton 138 Mass. 14 (1884) ………………...………………………………14

Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator 1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516 ……………13

Indra Sarma v. VKV Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755……………………………………………13

Independent Thought v. UOI (2017)10 SCC 800…………………………………………….13

Joseph Shine v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 4898.………………………………………….12

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr v. Union of India and Ors (2017) 10 SCC 1…….
………………………………………………………………………………………….….…12

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461…………………………………13

Mamta Verma v. Union of India and Ors. (2018) 14 SCC 28……………………………….12

Maneka Gandhi v Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597………………………………………….8

Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 51 Cal. 3d 120…………………………….13

Muskan v. State of Rajasthan Special Leave to Appeal Crl. No. 3193/2014…………….……9

M.Nagaraj & Others v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212…………………………………….13

Meera Santosh Pal v. Union of India (2017) 3 SCC 462………….………………………….13

Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 8 SCC 1……………………………14

Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI AIR 2018 SC 4321.........................................................................13

18
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Nand Kishore Sharma and Ors. v. Union of India AIR 2006 RAJ 166.…………………...…12

Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 8 SCC1……………………………………….17

Occupational Health and Safety Association v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 547…….
…………………………………………………………………………………………….….11

Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra 2017 Cri LJ 218……………………………………….13

Pratibha Gaur v. Government of State of NCT of Delhi, 2021 SCC Online Del 5573……….10

Pt. Paramananda Katara v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2039……………………………….11

Poornima Devu Mandavkar v. UOI AIR 2019………………………...……………….…….11

PUCL v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 568…………………………………………….…….12

R.D Shetty v. International Airport Authority (1979) 3 SCC 489.…………………………….8

Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538…………………………………8

Randhir Singh v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 879……………………………….………….9

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) ............................................................................................7

R v. State of Haryana 2016 SCC 183….…...…………………………………………………10

Ramesh Rathod v. State Criminal Appeal No 422 of 2021…………………….……………...16

Rakesh Kumar v. Prem Lal, (1996) ACJ 980 ……….……….........................................……16

S. Khusboo v. Kanniammal (2010) 5 SCC 600……………………………………………….13

Sarmishta Chakrabortty and anr v. Union of India and ors, (2018) 13 SCC 339…………….11

State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar AIR 1952 SC 123…………………………………11

State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar, (1991) 1 SCC 57 ……….……….….11

Siddhi Vishwanath Shelar v. State of Maharashtra Writ Petition No. 21977 OF 2021…...…10

Snehal Ravikant Mohite v. UOI Writ Petition No. 10835 of 2018……………….……….…10

Sidra Mehboob Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra Writ Petition (L) No. 15599 of
2021…………………………………………………………………………………….…….12

Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009) 9 SCC 1…………………………...13

19
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Sheetal Shankar Salvi v. UOI (2018) 11 SCC 606……………………………………………13

State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar AIR 1991 SC 207…………….….….14

Shabnam v. Union of India 2015 SCC OnLine SC 484………………………………….……14

Sudha Sandeep Devgirkr v. UOI (2018) 13 SCC 339……….…………………………….…14

The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya (2020) 7 SCC 469………………….….9

X v. The Pincipal Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department & Anr, 2022 SCC Online
SC 1321………………………………………………………………………………….…….7

XYZ v. UOI (2019) 3 BOM CR 400………………………………………………….………7

Union of India v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933…………….………………...............14

STATUTES

HINDU ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956, Sec. 8. ......................................... 8

GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT 1890 Sec. 7 and 8…………………………..……………..8
INDIA CONST., 1950 Art. 15. .................................................................................................. 9
INDIA CONST., 1950 Art. 16 ................................................................................................... 9
INDIA CONST., 1950, Art. 14. ................................................................................................. 7
INDIA CONST., 1950, Art. 21. ............................................................................................... 11
MTP ACT, 2021, Sec. 3........................................................................................................... 11

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Yokoe R, Rowe R, Choudhury SS, et al. Unsafe abortion and abortion-related death among 1.8
million women in India. BMJ Glob Health 2019;4: e00149. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2019-
001491……………………………………………………………………………………….13

RULES
MTP RULES, 2003, Rule 3B. ................................................................................................... 7

20
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER