BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Writ petition filed under Article 32 of the constitution

ARUNA RAMCHANDRA SHANBAUG :PETITIONER

V/S
UNION OF INDIA &OTHERS :RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS : 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES : 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION : 5

ISSUES RAISED : 6

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS : 7

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED : 9

PRAYER : 14
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE
SC SUPREME COURT
SCC SUPREME COURT CASE
V VERSUS
& AND
PIL PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES :
Banwasi seva ashram V. U P [1987] AIR 374[SC]
Gian kaur V. State of Punjab [1996] SCC 468
M Maharaj V. Union of India [2006]8 SCC 212
Rangadurai V. D Gopalan [1979] SCC 308
S P Gupta V. Union of India [1982] AIR 149[SC]
Vishwanath chaturvedi V. Union of India[2007]4 SCC
380

BOOKS :
J.N Pandey Conbstitutional Law of India.
M.P Jain Indian Constitutional Law of India.

BARE ACT :The Constitution of India ,1950

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner have endorsed their pleadings before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under article 32 of constitution
of India in which the hon’ble court has the jurisdiction.
Art 32:
(1)The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate
proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this
part is guaranteed.
(2)The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or
orders or writs, including in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus , prohibition , quo warranto, and certiorari, which
ever may be appropriate ,for the enforcement of any of the
rights conferred by this part.
(3)Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme
Court by clauses(1) and (2), parliament may by law empower
any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction ill or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme
Court under clause (2).
(4)The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended
except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.
 ISSUED RAISED

1. Whether the Writ petition is maintainable?

2. Whether Article 21 of the Constitution include

the right to die as well?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Maintainability of writ petition

THE WRIT PETITION IN THE PRESENT CASE IS
MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA UNDER ARTICLE 32.
The petitioner has litigation competence to submit the
writ petition before Supreme Court of India. Further,
Article 32 of the Constitution of India gives power to the
Supreme Court of India to entertain the writ petition.
Article 32(1) of the Indian Constitution clearly states that
“The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate
proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred
by this part is guaranteed”.
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Whether article 21 of the constitution includes the

right to die as well
IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT THAT THE RIGHT TO DIE IS INCLUDED
IN ARTICLE 21
Article 21 of the Indian constitution is one of the most
basic fundamental Right of the human beings. Article 21
prohibits person from deprivation of his life or liberty
except according to the procedure established by law. It
ensures upon the state obligation to provide every
person a quality life and a dignified life. This right has
been interpreted by the judiciary in a very elaborate way
to included new rights within its purview. Earlier to the
common cause judgment right to die was not considered
as a fundamental right. But the court in its judgment
declared right to die with dignity as fundamental right.
 ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

Maintainability of Writ petition :

There are variant prominence of Public Interest Litigation
(PIL). It gives a wider description to the right to equality
,life and personal liberty which is guaranteed under part
III of the constitution of India .It has introduced some
kinds of reliefs or remedies under the writ jurisdiction. It
also functions as an effective instrument for changes in
the society or social welfare. Through public interest
litigation , any public or person can seek remedy on
behalf of the oppressed class by introducing a PIL.
Above features are met upon close examination. The
petitioner pinky virani is not only a social activist working
for the public cause but also the closest watch keeper of
Ms. Aruna shanbaug and also has written book on her,
and hence has the credibility to file the instant petition.
The right to die is the logical corollary to the right to live ,
which falls under the ambit of Article 21.
Article 21 of the constitution of India , 1950 – this article
deals with the right to life and personal liberty which
covers a wide ambit of other rights like the right to food,
clean water, dignity , sleep, right against exploitation, etc
The question of the case is that, whether the right to life
includes ‘right to die’ or not.
Article 32 of the constitution of India 1950- this article
gives the right to constitutional remedies. It gives the
rights to citizens to move to the supreme court if any
other rights are infringed (here under article 21) also the
court can issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari for
enforcement of such rights.
Article 226 of the constitution of India, 1950- this article
gives the right to the high courts to issue writs. We shall
see later in the judgment of this case that the high courts
have to issue certain guidelines relating to the
permissibility of passive euthanasia in certain cases.
Section 309 of the Indian penal code , 1860- this section
gives punishment to any person who attempts to commit
suicide . Thus the it is implied from this provision that a
person cannot be allowed to willingly take away his own
life .
Section 306 of Indian penal Code, 1860- this section gives
punishment to any person who abets another person for
the commission of suicide. So in this case, any person any
person who helps the patient in euthanasia may also be
held guilty by the court.
The Bombay high court in the case of Maharashtra v.
Maruti sripati dubal stated that the right to life under
article 21 of constitution also includes the right to die. It
was contended that section 309 of the Indian penal code
(attempt to commit suicide)is thus unconstitutional, as it
is violated article 21 of the constitution. Court clearly
stated that in this judgment the right to die is just
uncommon not unnatural.
Thus humbly contended that by article 21 the writ
petition is maintainable for the person whose
fundamental rights have been violated and the writ
petition is maintainable.
 ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

Whether article 21 of the constitution includes

the right to die as well

Article 21 (PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY:

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according the procedure established by law)
The right to die is a corollary to the right to life, which is
included in the scope of article 21.
Article 21 of the constitution ,1950- this article deals with
the right to life and personal freedom , which includes
various other rights such as the right to food , clean ,
water dignity , sleep, right to exploitation, etc. this
applies regardless of whether the right to life includes
the right to die or not .
It is submitted that every person has an inherent right to
die with dignity. Right to die with dignity is a
supplementary feature of article 21 of the constitution. It
is also submitted that right to die without pain is an
important aspect of integrity. The fuel to individual
autonomy or self sufficiency is a part of right to privacy
which is a fundamental right and which also forms a part
of fundamental concept of liberty.
In state of Maharashtra v maruty shripati dubal , the
issue was that the section 309 of the Indian penal code
was unconstitutional as it is violative of the fundamental
rights of article 19 and article 21. The Bombay high court
held that right to life also includes the right to die
thereby section 309 of IPC was struck down.
In case of P Ratinam v union of india [3] it was held that
the scope of article 21 also includes the right to die.
In the case of Gian kaur v state of Punjab [4] the
legitimacy of section 306 of IPC was in question , which
penalized the attempt of suicide. This case overruled P
Ratinam but the court contended that in the context of a
terminally ill patient or one in the vegetative state , the
right to die is a mere acceleration of the process of
death.
In the case of Nikhil Soni v Union of india $ Ors
recognized that the right to life including the right to live
with human dignity would mean the existence of such
right up to dignified procedure of death. In other words
this may include the right of dying man to also die with
dignity when his life is ebbing.
Further, it was also submitted that the right to live with
human dignity must also include a death with dignity and
not one of subsisting mental and physical agony. Reliance
was placed on the landmark judgment of Airedale NHS
Trust v. bland, where for the first time in English history,
The right to die was allowed through the withdrawal of
life support systems including food and water.
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

IN THE LIGHT OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED CASED

AND AUTHORITIES CITED ABOVE , THE PETITIONER
HUMBLY REQUESTS THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA TO ADMIT THE WRIT PETITION AND IN SO DOING
ADJUDGE AND DECLARE THAT:
1. The petition is maintainable under article 32
2. Article 21 of the constitution includes the right to die
as well.
AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER ,DIRECTION OR RELIEF
THAT IF MAY DEEM FIT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF
JUSTICE , FAIRNESS , EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.
For this act of kindness, the petitioners shall be duty
bound and forever pray.
SD/-
Counsel for the petitioner
SUBMITTED BY : GROUP 3

PETITIONER 1 : AMRUTH MADHU.KP

7th SEMESTER
ROLL NO: 11

PETITIONER 2 : ANAGHA.O
7TH SEMESTER
ROLL NO:12

Case Name: Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug V Union of

India & Ors on March , 2011