TEAM CODE: TC-11R

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDONIA

IN THE MATTER OF –

C.P. NO. ___ / 2020

(UNDER ARTICLE 134(1)(C) OF CONSTITUTION OF INDONIA)
DR. AWANISH PRAKASH UNION OF INDONIA
(APPELLANT) V. (RESPONDENT)

CLUBBED WITH

WP / / 2020
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDONIA)
DR. AWANISH PRAKASH UNION OF INDONIA
(PETITIONER 1) V. (RESPONDENT)

CLUBBED WITH

PIL / / 2020
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDONIA)
PEOPLE FOR ETHICAL RESEARCH UNION OF INDONIA
(PETITIONER 2) V. (RESPONDENT)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [TABLE OF CONTENTS]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... III

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................... VIII

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................. XIX

STATEMENT OF FACTS ..............................................................................................XX

ISSUES RAISED ...........................................................................................................XXII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................................. XXIII

BODY OF ARGUMENTS .................................................................................................. 1

I. HON’BLE HIGH COURT STANDS CORRECT IN HOLDING THE

PETITIONER-I LIABLE FOR MURDER ..................................................................... 1

A. CLONE FALLS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF HUMAN .................................................. 1

1. Humans born through cloning are unique individuals .......................................... 1

2. Clones Belong to a sub-species of human ............................................................ 2

B. THE ESSENTIALS OF SECTION 300 OF IPC WERE MET IN THE INSTANT MATTER..... 2

1. The petitioner-i has the requisite Mens rea ........................................................... 3

The petitioner-I had a clear motive to commit the crime ................................... 3

The petitioner-I had a clear Intention to commit the crime ............................... 4

2. The Act of petitioner-I has caused the death ........................................................ 5

The victim didn’t die due to natural causes ...................................................... 5

The Petitioner-I has acted upon his Intention ................................................... 6
The circumstances form a clear chain of events................................................ 7

II. THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE ............................ 8

A. THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO RESEARCH AND

INNOVATION OF THE CITIZEN OF INDONIA ..................................................................... 8

1. It passes the test of reasonable restriction ............................................................. 8

The restriction prescribed passes the reasonable test of morality. .................... 9

The restriction prescribed passes the reasonable test of public order. ............ 10

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | I

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [TABLE OF CONTENTS]

2. Human reproductive cloning is ethically wrong ................................................. 11

B. HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE CLONING VIOLATES ARTICLE 21. OF INDONIAN

CONSTITUTION… ......................................................................................................... 11

1. Cloning Technique violates the Right to live with dignity of a human clone ...... 12

2. Cloning Technique violates Right to Privacy ..................................................... 13

Cloning would threaten one’s genetic information ......................................... 13

Right to Individuality will be threatened ......................................................... 14

3. The Cloning technique violates the Right to Health under Article 21. ................ 15

III. PIL BY THE PETITIONER-II IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDONIA ............................................................ 16

A. COMPLETE BAN ON HUMAN CLONING WILL UNDERMINE REPRODUCTIVE

FREEDOM.. .................................................................................................................. 16

B. COMPLETE BAN ON HUMAN CLONING WILL ALSO COMPLETELY NEGLECT THE FIELD
OF THERAPEUTIC CLONING .......................................................................................... 16

PRAYER ..................................................................................................................... XXIV

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | II

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS]

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM

& and

§ Section

¶ Paragraph

A.I.R. All India Reporter

A.P. Andhra Pradesh

All E.R. All England Report

anr. Another

Acad. Academy

Adm’r Administrator

Art. Article

Ass’n Association

Auth. Authority

Bd. Board

Bom. Bombay

Cal. Calcutta

Calif. California

Cent. Central

Co. Company

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | III

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS]

Comm’n. Commission

Const. Constitution

Constr. Construction

Corp. Corporation

Dec. December

Del. Delhi

Dev. Development

Dir’t Directorate

E.C.H.R. European Commission of Human Rights

E.H.R.R. European Human Right Report

Ed. Edition

Educ. Education

Exam’n Examination

Found. Foundation

G.A. General Assembly

Gov’t. Government

Guj. Gujarat

H.P. Himachal Pradesh

Hon’ble Honourable

i.e. That is

ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | IV

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS]

ICESC International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights

Id Ibidem

Inst. Institution

Int’l International

IPC Indian Penal Code

J. & K. Jammu and Kashmir

Kar. Karnataka

L.I.C. Life Insurance Corporation

Ltd. Limited

M.P. Madhya Pradesh

Mad. Madras

Mar. March

Mun. Municipal

N.U.J.S National University of Juridical Science

N.C.T. National Capital Territory

N.G.O. Non-Governmental Organisation

NHFS National Health and Family Survey

No. Number

Ors. Others

P.&H. Punjab and Haryana

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | V

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS]

P.C. Privy Council

Para Paragraph

PIL Public Interest Litigation

Pmbl. Preamble

Prot. Protection

Pub. Public

Pvt. Private

P.W.D.V.A. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act

Q.B.D. Queen’s Bench Division

R. Reigns

Raj. Rajasthan

Res. Resolution

Rev. Review

Rts. Rights

Ry. Railway

S.C. Supreme Court

S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases

S.C.R. Supreme Court Reporter

Scot. Scotland

Sec’y. Secretary

Serv. Service

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | VI

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS]

Stud. Student

Supp. Supplementary

TRAI Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

U.K. United Kingdom

U.K.H.L. United Kingdom House of Lords

U.S. United States

U.T. Union Territory

UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights

U.N.T.S. United Nations Treaty Series

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization

v. Versus

viz. Namely

Web. Website

WHO World Health Orgaisation

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | VII

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

SUPREME COURT CASES PG. NO.

Aarushi Dhasmana v. Union of India, (2013) 9 SCC 475 (India) 13

Aditya Mahapatra & Anr. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1989 SC 2110 (India) 6

Ajay Goswami v. Union of India, (2007) 1 SCC 143 (India) 9

Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 454 (India) 13

Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra, (1961) (3) SCR 423 (India) 10

Bakhtawar & Anr. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1979 SC 1006 (India) 6

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1997) 10 SCC 549 (India) 15

Bharwad Bhikha Natha & ors. v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1977 SC 1768 (India) 6

Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. v. Rajesh Verma, (2014) 5 SCC 551 (India) 8

Central Prison v. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, (1960) 2 SCR 821 (India) 10

Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodhar v. State of Maharashtra, (1969) 2 SCC 130 9

(India)

Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1 (India) 13

Confederation of Ex-servicemen Association v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 12

399 (India)

Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India, 1995 AIR 922 15
(India)

Devika Biswas v. Union of India, (2016) 10 SCC 726 (India) 16

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | VIII

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

Director General of Doordarshan v. Anand Parwardhan, (2006) 8 SCC 433 9

(India)

Francis Coralie Mullin v. Adm’r Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608 11
(India)

Hanuman v. State of MP., AIR 1976 SC 343 (India) 7

Hindi Hitrashak Samiti v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 851 (India) 8

Jai Prakash v. state (Delhi Administration), (1991) 2 SCC 32 (India) 7

Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (1993) Supp (3) SCC 109 (India) 3

Jaspal Singh v. state of Punjab, 1986 2 SCC 100 (India) 6

K.S. Puttuswamy v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 809 (India) 13

Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar, AIR (1962) SC 955 (India) 9

Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 (India) 8

Khyerbari Tea Co. v. State of Assam, AIR 1964 SC 925 (India) 8

Laxman & ors. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803 (India) 7

Lokesh Shivakumar v. State of Karnataka, 2012 3 SCC 196 (India) 5

Mafabhai Nagarbhai v. State of Gujarat, (1992) 4 SCC 69 (India) 7

Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 783 (India) 8

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 (India) 11

Marimuthu v. Inspector of Police, 2016 SCC OnLine Mad. 10175 (India) 13

Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar 1992 3 SCC 43 (India) 3

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | IX

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

Nankaunoo v. State of U.P, (2016) 3 SCC 317 (India) 4

National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438 14

(India)

Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi, (2009) SCC Online Del 9

1762 (India)

P Rathinam v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 394 (India) 12

Pohalaya v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 1949 (India) 7

Prahlad v. State of Haryana, (2015) 8 SCC 688 (India) 13

Pramati Educ. & Cultural Trust v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 1 (India) 13

Prem Kumar v. State of Bihar, 1995 3 SCC 228 (India) 3

PUCL v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301 (India) 13

Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P., 2006 11 SCC 444 (India) 4

Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1978 SC 1420 (India) 6

Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR (1957) SC 620 (India) 10

Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, (1965) 1 SCR 65 (India) 9

Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, (1950) SCR 594 (India) 9

Sabedar Tewari v. State of U.P., (1989) Supp (1) SCC 91 (India) 3

Sabimal Sarkar v. Sachindra Nath Mandal, (2003) 2 SCC 566 (India) 3

Sahajahan v. State of Kerela, 2017 12 SCC 96 (India) 7

Sahebrao Mohan Berad v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 4 SCC 249 (India) 7

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | X

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra, (1985) 4 SCC 289 (India) 9

Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B, 2010 8 SCC 249 (India) 7

Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Asstt. Passport Officer, (1967) 3 12

SCR 525 (India)

Shantabai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1958 SC 532 (India) 8

Shantisar Builders v. Narayanan Khimalal Totame, (1990) 1 SCC 520 (India) 12

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 (India) 7

Sharad Birdi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 (India) 7

Sharda v. Dharampal, (2003) 4 SCC 493 (India) 13

Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2011) 3 SCC 654 (India) 3

Sodi Shamsher Singh v. State of Pepsu, (1954) Cr LJ 735 (India) 10

Spring Meadows Hospital and other v. Hajot Ahluwalia, AIR 1998 SC 1801 13
(India)

State of Bihar v. K.K. Mishra, (1970) (3) SCR 181 (India) 9

State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, 2002 2 SCC 426 (India) 7

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ram Sharma, (1986) 2 SCC 68 (India) 12

State of Kerala and Anr. v PUCL, (2009) 8 SCC 46 (India) 13

State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar, (1999) 1 SCC 57 13

(India)

State v. Mahendra Singh Dahiya, (2011) 3 SCC 109 (India) 3

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | XI

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

Sudarshan Kumar v. State of Delhi, AIR 1974 SC 2328 (India) 6

Sunit Clifford Daniel v. State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 205 (India) 3

Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, (1995) Supp (1) SCC 80 (India) 3

Surinder Pal Jain v. Delhi Admn., (1993) Supp (3) SCC 681 (India) 3

Surjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1965) SC 845 (India) 10

Tarseem Kumar v. Delhi Admn., (1994) Supp (3) SCC 367 (India) 3

Udaipal Singh v. State of U.P., (1972) 4 SCC 142 (India) 4

Vijay Shankar v. State of Haryana, 2015 12 SCC 644 (India) 4

Virendra v. State of Punjab, (1958) SCR 308 (India) 10

HIGH COURT CASES PG. NO.

Mohd. Ahmed v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1508 (India) 15

S.P.T. Karuppiah v. State of T.N, (1992) 1 Crimes 353 (Mad) (India) 7

Shampa Singha v. State of West Bengal, 2019 SCC OnLine Cal. 153 (India) 13

Sonaram Jatap v. State of Assam, 1984 CrLJ (NOC) 145 (India) 4

T. Ramakrishna Rao v. Hyderabad Development Authority, 2001 SCC 15

OnLine AP 613 (India)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CASES PG. NO.

Lifchez v. Hartigan, 735 F. Supp. 1361 (Ill.) 16

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | XII

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

Munn v. Illinois, 94 US 113 (1877) (US) 12

UNITED KINGDOM CASES PG. NO.

R. v. Mathews & Alleyne, 2003 EW CA Crim 192 (U.K.) 3

R. v. Moloney, 1985 1 AER 1025 (U.K.); R v. Woollin 1999 AC 82 (U.K.) 3

BOOKS PG. NO.

1 H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW of INDIA 455 (4th Ed. 2010) 8

1 WILLIAM G. STAPLES, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PRIVACY, 252 (2007) 13

BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1162 (10th ed. 2015) 9

DAVID ORMEROD, BLACKSTONE’S CRIMINAL PRACTICE 19 (2012) 4

GLANVILLE WILLIAMS, TEXTBOOK OF CRIMINAL LAW 30 (2nd ed. 1983) 3

KERRY LYNN MACINTOSH, HUMAN CLONING: FOUR FALLACIES AND 1

THEIR LEGAL CONSEQUENCES 41 (2013)

MAHENDRA PAL SINGH, V.N. SHUKLA’S CONSITUTION OF INDIA 146 (12th 10

ed. 2015)

PS PILLAI, CRIMINAL LAW 41 (13th ed. 2017) 3

RATANLAL AND DHEERAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 1270 (32nd ed. 5
2010)

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | XIII

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

STATUTES PG. NO.

India Const. art. 21 11

India Const. art. 3 9

The Indian Penal Code 1860, No. 45 of 1860, § 300 2

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION AND TREATIES PG. NO.

NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE, CLONING FACT SHEET 6

(2017)

UDHR, UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, art. 25, (2015) 15

UNESCO, NATIONAL LEGISLATION CONCERNING HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE 5

AND THERAPEUTIC CLONING (2004)

WHO, CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD HELATH ORGANISATION (2006) 15

JOURNALS AND ARTICLES PG. NO.

Bernard E. Rollin, Keeping up with the Clones: Issues in Human Cloning, 11

JSTOR (Jan. 16, 2020, 6:02 AM),
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25115600?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_content
s

Christos Labrou, The use of Therapeutic Cloning in Transplantation: An 17

Aristotalean Perspective, UCL (Jan. 15, 2020, 8:25 PM),
https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1470662/1/1UCLJLJ63%20-
%20Cloning.pdf

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | XIV

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

Dan W. Brock, Cloning Human Beings, BROWN UNIVERSITY (JAN. 17, 9

2020, 8:26 AM),
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/nbac/pubs/cloning2/cc5.pdf

Dan W. Rock, Cloning Human Beings, BROWN UNIVERSITY (Jan. 25, 16

2020, 5:25 PM)
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/nbac/pubs/cloning2/cc5.pdf

David Elliott, Uniqueness, Individuality, and Human Cloning, 15 J. APPL. 1

PHILOS. 217, 223 (1998)

Dr. Vidhushi Jaiswal, Psychological Effects of Workplace Surveillance on 13

Employees, and the legal protection: An analysis, 5 BLR 59, 64 (2017)

Harold T. Shapiro, Ethical and Policy issues of Human Cloning, POLICY 11

FORUM (Jan. 19, 2020, 6:02 AM),
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Ethical-and-policy-issues-of-
human-cloning.-Shapiro/99e8a5fcf28c4b46952f67d76cfa25b955430c38

Heiner Niemann, Pluripotent Stem Cells, SCEINCE DIRECT (JAN. 14, 2020, 17
2:25 PM), https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/therapeutic-
cloning

J.D. Andrews & B. Lori, Cloning human beings, CHICAGO-KENT 14

COLLEGE OF LAW (Jan. 18, 2020, 9:25 PM),
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/nbac/pubs/cloning2/cc6.pdf

Jonathan Herringjesee Wall, The nature and significance of the right to 13

bodily integrity, 76 CAMBRIDGE L. J. 566, 568 (2017)

Jörg Patrick Burgstaller & Gottfried Brem, Aging of Cloned Animals: A 6

Mini-Review, GERONTOLOGY (Jan. 6, 2020, 6:30 PM),
https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/452444

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | XV

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

Judy Jones, Cloning May Cause Health Defects, NCBI (Jan. 15, 2020, 15
6:25 PM), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1115633/

Lawrence O. Gostin, Genetic Privacy, 23 J.L. ME D. & ETHICS 320, 320 14

(1995)

Loredana Terec-Vlada, Daniel Terec-Vlad, Ethical Aspects within Human 12

Cloning, 92 LUMEN 920, 923 (2013)

Masahiro Morioka, The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of 2

Human life, RESEARCH GATE (Jan. 26, 2020, 3:03 PM),
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314632947_The_Ethics_of_Hu
man_Cloning_and_the_Sprout_of_Human_Life/link/58c3e18fa6fdcce648
e1e061/download

Michele Simms, Defining Privacy in Employee Health Screening Cases: 14

Ethical Ramifications Concerning the Employee/Employer Relationship,
JSTOR (Jan. 29 2020, 8:09 PM),
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25072536.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Aab
69b7f0f24b093ec46b74b987668063

Mitchel Sayare, Human Cloning, SCIENCE (Jan. 17, 2020, 4:59 PM), 1
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/200/4341/486.1.long

Ms. Rithika Vidyut Shenoy and Ms. Saisha Raj Orke, The Cost of Human 14
Cloning: A Threat to Individuality and Diversity, 1 INT. J. LAW. LEG.
JURISPRUD. STUD. 1, 14 (2014)

National Academic of Science, Cloning: Definitions and Applications, 14

NCBI (Jan. 16, 2020, 4:09 PM),
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK223960/

Rudolf Jaenisch and Ian Wilmut, Don't Clone Humans!, SCIENCE 11

COMPASS, (JAN. 14, 2020, 2:25 AM),

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | XVI

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a3d3/6726a07ddb03f43ca3e43aae6aa26c
39b680.pdf

Shih Ching-Pou, Moral and Legal Issues Concerning Contemporary 12

Human Cloning Technology: Quest for Regulatory Consensus in the
International Community to Safeguard Rights and Liberties Essential to
the Future of Humanity, GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW,
(Jan. 25, 2020, 6:58 PM),
http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&co
ntext=theses

Shyam Krishna Balganesh, Genetic Privacy: The Emergence of New 14

Paradigm in Medical Confidentiality, JSTOR (Jan. 26, 2020, 9:00 PM),
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43952133?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_content
s

Tanuj Kanchan, T. S. Mohan Kumar, Multifaceted Aspects of Human 1

Cloning, RESEARCH GATE (Jan. 5, 2020, 5:56 PM),
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49607230_Multifaceted_Aspect
s_of_Human_Cloning

herapeutic Cloning for Tissue Repair, AUSTRALIAN ACADEMY OF 17

SCIENCE (JAN. 5, 2020, 5:09 AM),
https://www.science.org.au/files/userfiles/support/submissions/1999/clone
2.pdf

UNESCO, UNIVERSAL DECLARATION ON THE HUMAN GENOME AND 5

HUMAN RIGHTS (1997) [hereinafter Human genome]; Carmel Shalev,
Human Cloning and Human Rights: A Commentary, JSTOR (Jan. 4,
2020, 3:54 PM), www.jstor.org/stable/4065317

Committee on Etihcs, Informed Consent, ACOG (Jan. 1, 2020, 5:45 PM), 9

https://www.acog.org/Clinical-Guidance-and-Publications/Committee-
Opinions/Committee-on-Ethics/Informed-Consent?IsMobileSet=false.

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | XVII

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

EF Cooke, Germ-Line Engineering and Future Generations: An Ethical 9

and Legal, 52 JILI 3, 5 (2010).

Marin Gillis, The Ethics on Human Cloning, RESEARCH GATE (Jan. 2, 10

2020, 5:45 AM),
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297408833_The_Ethics_of_Hu
man_Cloning.

Seyedeh Leila Nabavizadeh & Davood Mehrabani, Cloning a Review on 10

Bioetihcs, Legal, Jurisprudence and Regenerative Issues in Iran, WJPS
(Jan. 4, 2020, 5:45 AM), http://wjps.ir/article-1-262-en.pdf.

U.S. FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION, MYTHS ABOUT CLONING (2018) 6

U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, FOURTH AMENDMENT: SEARCH AND 13

SEIZURE (1992)

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | XVIII

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION]

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petition no. 1 and 2, and the Appeal have been filed under Article 32 and Article 134 (1)
(c) of the Constitution of Indonia respectively. The petitions and appeal are clubbed together
by virtue of the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indonia. The Hon’ble Court has the
requisite jurisdiction for the adjudication of the present dispute.

Thereby, the Petitioner submits this memorial which sets forth the facts and the laws on
which the claims are based.

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | XIX

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [SUMMARY OF FACTS]

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND
Dr. Awanish Prakash [hereinafter Petitioner-I] of Parsenia, Indonia is a renowned genius in
human genetics and transplant surgery who has a specialization in Somatic Cell Nuclear
Transfer [hereinafter SCNT] Techniques. He is a young scientist receiving his doctorate from
Boston School of Medicine, establishing his labs in Parsenia and Iran. He even worked on
different research projects for various multinationals, also regularly receiving funding for his
independent research.
In 2005, Petitioner-I marries Varunya who is also an aspiring researcher in the same field.
However, she wasn’t able to procreate since she was suffering from Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-
Hauser [hereinafter MRKH] Syndrome. Petitoner-I was very disturbed with the health
condition of Varunya since by 2009 she also got diagnosed with a liver disorder. Which is why
he decided to consult his specialist colleagues in Boston and Iran. Frequently visiting those
places, desperate for a probable cure.
INSTANT MATTER
On 20th May 2018, a garbage collector of the local municipality of Parsenia collected a
suspicious corpse and reported about the same in a nearby local police station. In the forensic
report, it was mentioned that the human corpse, genetically aged below 10 years, was found
without a liver and a heart that was removed by surgery. Upon further investigation, the DNA
traced from the corpse matched that of Varunya, while samples of lab-grown embryos were
recovered from their laboratory. Later Petitioner-I admitted that the corpse was a clone of
Varunya developed through epigenetics and SCNT technique.
FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
The matter was heard by the Trial Court which held Petitioner-I innocent of murder as
essentials of the Section of 300 of IPC were not met. The State preferred an appeal to the High
Court which reversed the decision of Lower Court contending Petitioner-I liable for murder as
clones fall under the category of human. Petitioner-I appealed before the Supreme Court and
the matter is listed below.
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME
COURT
One NGO ‘People for Ethical Research’ [hereinafter Petitioner-II] filed a Public Interest
Litigation [hereinafter PIL] before the Supreme Court of Indonia seeking immediate redressal
in the form of a complete ban on human cloning. They argued against such experiments on the

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | XX

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [SUMMARY OF FACTS]

ground of perils to humankind and the difficult glitches of interspecies variance. Supreme
Court issues notice to Union Government in the pertinent matter.
WRIT PETITION FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
Petitioner-I filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of Indonia, stating the violation of his
FR to Research and Innovation. He contended that the research impediments and the legal
implications alongside Public Interest Litigation filed by the Petitioner-II would create
hindrance in endeavours to secure the healthy life of the citizens who are already suffering due
to natural causes. He further stated the requirement of promotion research to ensure the
overachieving benefits of technology of the ailing population.
CLUBBING OF PETITIONS
The writ petition filed by the Petitioner-I and PIL filed by Petitioner-II was clubbed together
with the appeal filed by Petitioner-I before the Supreme Court.

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | XXI

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [ISSUES RAISED]

ISSUES RAISED

I. WHETHER THE HIGH COURT HAS ERRED IN HOLDING PETITIONER-I LIABLE FOR

MURDER UNDER IPC SECTION 300?

II. WHETHER ORDER OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONER-I?
III. WHETHER THE PIL FILED BY PETITIONER-II IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDONIA?

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | XXII

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS]

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I: High Court stands correct in holding the Petitioner-I liable for murder.
It is submitted that the High Court stands correct in holding the Petitioner-I liable under Section
300 of IPC as clone falls under the category of human. The Petitioner-I has caused the death
of the corpse to harvest the liver from the victim to cure the liver disorder of his wife. It is
further submitted that since the medical report which was ordered by the Court hasn’t reported
any liver disorder and the gene sequence is 100 percent normal which proves that the liver of
the victim has been harvested into the Petitioner-I’s wife.

ISSUE II: Order of the Hon’ble High Court does not violate the Fundamental Rights of
the Petitioner-I.
Research impediments do not violate Petitioner’s Fundamental Right to Research and
Innovation since it is submitted that human cloning is morally, ethically, against human dignity.
Hence, any legal implications imposed on research on human cloning is a reasonable
restriction. It is further submitted that the research impediments violate Article 21 of the human
clone, as it violates the Right to live with human dignity because it is a constant subject of
scientific exploration. Further, it also violates one’s Right to privacy as people with the same
identity and genetic information would make one’s data easily available in the public domain.

ISSUE III: The PIL filed by Petitioner-II is not maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of Indonia.
The Public Interest Litigation [hereinafter PIL] is legal action taken by a public-spirited person
to protect the public interest. It is submitted that Petitioner-II has filed a PIL to ban human
cloning. Human cloning is a process that includes reproductive as well as the therapeutic mode
of technique. The banning of human cloning will also include therapeutic cloning which in
actuality helps in establishing alternative cures and recreating tissues or organs. It is further
submitted that ban of human cloning would directly infringe the FR of Reproduction.

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | XXIII

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [BODY OF ARGUMENTS]

BODY OF ARGUMENTS

I. HON’BLE HIGH COURT STANDS CORRECT IN HOLDING THE

PETITIONER-I LIABLE FOR MURDER

(¶ 1.) It is submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Petitioner-I has committed
the offence of murder because firstly, the clone falls under the definition of human [A], and
secondly, the essentials of Section 300 of IPC were meet in the instant matter [B].

A. CLONE FALLS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF HUMAN

(¶ 2.) Human cloning is duplicating of biological material, 1 producing genetically identical

human beings2 and in biological terms is defined as an asexual replication through genetic
engineering of an individual, or that of a DNA sequence. 3 It is submitted that a clone is human
because firstly, the humans born through cloning are unique individuals [1] and secondly
because clones belong to a sub-species of humans [2].

1. HUMANS BORN THROUGH CLONING ARE UNIQUE INDIVIDUALS

(¶ 3.) Cloned animals are far from being the exact copy of the donor since genes, epigenetic
factors, and environmental influences work together to shape the unique bodies and their
behavior.4
(¶ 4.) Their physical, intellectual, and psychological traits will differ from those of their
donors and others who share their nuclear DNA since they will be born as babies and will have
their lifespans.
(¶ 5.) It is submitted that the clones are the unique individual having their thought process

1
Mitchel Sayare, Human Cloning, SCIENCE (Jan. 17, 2020, 4:59 PM),
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/200/4341/486.1.long.
2
David Elliott, Uniqueness, Individuality, and Human Cloning, 15 J. APPL. PHILOS. 217, 223 (1998) [hereinafter
David].
3
Tanuj Kanchan, T. S. Mohan Kumar, Multifaceted Aspects of Human Cloning, RESEARCH GATE (Jan. 5, 2020,
5:56 PM), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49607230_Multifaceted_Aspects_of_Human_Cloning.
4
KERRY LYNN MACINTOSH, HUMAN CLONING: FOUR FALLACIES AND THEIR LEGAL CONSEQUENCES 41 (2013)
[hereinafter kerry].

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | 1

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [BODY OF ARGUMENTS]

and all other characteristics of humans and they can’t be considered the same to the parent
donor.

2. CLONES BELONG TO A SUB-SPECIES OF HUMAN

(¶ 6.) The animal clones that survived birth and initial adjustment to life outside the womb,
are seen to even reach developmental milestones and are considered to be healthy and
functional members of their species. 5 Ordinary development and function in cloned animals
give reason to anticipate that humans born through cloning will develop and function like other
human beings do, possessing a human genome. 6
(¶ 7.) It is submitted that the transfer of embryos to a human womb leads to the production of
an individual with the same genetic structure as the donor such that a subspecies of human is
formed. 7 Upon analysis, clones are often indistinguishable from others of their species, right
down to their very composition. 8 Even though cloning takes place via asexual reproduction,
people born through cloning will be just as human as possible since there is no biological reason
to discriminate them, particularly to the evidence indicating that cloned animals are unique
individuals. 9
(¶ 8.) Therefore, in the present case, the clones are to be considered as a human as they have
all the biological characteristic of humans

B. THE ESSENTIALS OF SECTION 300 OF IPC WERE MET IN THE INSTANT MATTER.

(¶ 9.) The offence of murder is enumerated under Section 300 of IPC, 10 in which the person
is liable if the act has caused the death of a person and that act should be intentional. There are
other three different clauses which enshrined different kind of mens rea and act (Bodily Injury)

5
Kerry, supra note 4, at 25.
6
Kerry, supra note 4, at 59.
7
Masahiro Morioka, The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human life, RESEARCH GATE (Jan. 26, 2020,
3:03 PM),
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314632947_The_Ethics_of_Human_Cloning_and_the_Sprout_of_Hu
man_Life/link/58c3e18fa6fdcce648e1e061/download.
8
Kerry, supra note 4, at 22.
9
Kerry, supra note 4, at 39.
10
The Indian Penal Code 1860, No. 45 of 1860, § 300.

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | 2

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [BODY OF ARGUMENTS]

which can cause the death of a person.

(¶ 10.) It is submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the High Court stands correct in
holding the Petitioner-I liable for murder because firstly, the Petitioner-I has the requisite Mens
rea [1], and secondly because the Petitioner-I caused the death of the victim [2].

1. THE PETITIONER-I HAS THE REQUISITE MENS REA

(¶ 11.) An act becomes criminal only when it is done with a guilty mind, 11 wrongful intent or
other faults. 12 The Mens rea for murder is either the intention to kill 13 or an intention to cause
grievous bodily harm. 14
(¶ 12.) It is submitted that the Petitioner-I had the Mens rea in the instant matter because firstly,
there is a clear motive of the Petitioner-I to commit the crime [a], and secondly, the Petitioner-
I had a clear Intention to commit the crime [b].

The petitioner-I had a clear motive to commit the crime

(¶ 13.) A motive is behind almost every criminal act which drives a culprit towards a certain
course of action15 and can be used to connect the chain of circumstances. 16 In cases based on
circumstantial evidence, the motive for committing the crime assumes great importance 17 with
a necessary link between the two.18 It is used in such scenarios to ensure that suspicion,
emotion or conjecture does not take the place of proof.19
(¶ 14.) If evidence shows that the Accused has a strong enough motive, opportunity to commit

11
PS PILLAI, CRIMINAL LAW 41 (13th ed. 2017) [hereinafter pillai].
12
GLANVILLE WILLIAMS, TEXTBOOK OF CRIMINAL LAW 30 (2nd ed. 1983).
13
R. v. Mathews & Alleyne, 2003 EW CA Crim 192 (U.K.).
14
R. v. Moloney, 1985 1 AER 1025 (U.K.); R v. Woollin 1999 AC 82 (U.K.).
15
Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (1993) Supp (3) SCC 109 (India).
16
Prem Kumar v. State of Bihar, 1995 3 SCC 228 (India).
17
State v. Mahendra Singh Dahiya, (2011) 3 SCC 109 (India); Surinder Pal Jain v. Delhi Admn., (1993) Supp (3)
SCC 681 (India), Tarseem Kumar v. Delhi Admn., (1994) Supp (3) SCC 367 (India). Sheo Shankar Singh v. State
of Jharkhand, (2011) 3 SCC 654 (India), Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar 1992 3 SCC 43 (India).
18
Sabimal Sarkar v. Sachindra Nath Mandal, (2003) 2 SCC 566 (India).
19
Sunit Clifford Daniel v. State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 205 (India); Sabedar Tewari v. State of U.P., (1989)
Supp (1) SCC 91 (India); Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, (1995) Supp (1) SCC 80 (India) [hereinafter
Suresh Chandra].

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | 3

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [BODY OF ARGUMENTS]

the crime and the established circumstances show that within all human possibilities, the crime
must have been committed by the Accused, one can be held guilty on such circumstantial
evidence.20 The motive is indicated to heighten the probability of offence that Accused was
impelled by that motive to commit the offence. 21
(¶ 15.) It is submitted, that the Petitioner-I, is a renowned genius in human genetics and
transplant surgery, was disturbed since his wife was suffering from a liver disorder which was
at an initial stage. On 20th May 2018 a human corpse is recovered missing a heart and a liver,
genetically aged below 10 years22 which the Petitioner-I later agreed on it being his wife’s
clone. 23 The medical examination of his wife reported the absence of any liver disorder. 24
(¶ 16.) It is submitted that if the human clone was formed for research purposes Petitioner-I
could have made his clone, but instead made a clone of his wife. It is also apparent that the
missing organs were surgically removed since he, himself is supplementing the same.
Therefore, in the present case, there is a grave suspicion in the whole conduct of the Petitioner-
I, such that the entire ordeal points towards a pre-planned conspiracy to harvest the human
clone’s organ for his wife.

The petitioner-I had a clear Intention to commit the crime

(¶ 17.) The intention may develop instantaneously and its existence has to be gathered from
the circumstance25, such as premeditation of an incident or the person inflicting the injury has
taken the undue advantage or acted cruelly26. A person clearly intends a consequence if he
wants that consequence to follow from his action. 27 It is the purposeful doing of the thing to
achieve a particular end. 28

20
Udaipal Singh v. State of U.P., (1972) 4 SCC 142 (India).
21
Vijay Shankar v. State of Haryana, 2015 12 SCC 644 (India).
22
Moot Proposition para. 7.
23
Moot Proposition para. 12.
24
Moot Proposition para. 13.
25
Nankaunoo v. State of U.P, (2016) 3 SCC 317 (India); Sonaram Jatap v. State of Assam, 1984 CrLJ (NOC) 145
(India).
26
Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P., 2006 11 SCC 444 (India).
27
DAVID ORMEROD, BLACKSTONE’S CRIMINAL PRACTICE 19 (2012).
28
Suresh Chandra, supra note 19.

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | 4

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [BODY OF ARGUMENTS]

(¶ 18.) The intention is a purpose or design with which an act is done; it is the foreknowledge
of the act coupled with desire.29 The knowledge that death will probably be caused is a very
important consideration for concluding that the death caused, is indeed murder, with an
intention to cause it. “Intention is what intention does” which can be inferred from the act 30
and injuries.31
(¶ 19.) It is submitted that the Petitioner-I who was a genius in transplant surgery, had a strong
motive, especially since the victim was in his custody at the time of death, as no FIR was lodged
by him. The dead body was also found without a liver and heart which was clearly surgically
removed and its absence in all probability could cause the death of a person. Therefore, in the
present case, the Petitioner-I had the clear intention to kill the victim.

2. THE ACT OF PETITIONER-I HAS CAUSED THE DEATH

(¶ 20.) If the act which caused the death is done with the intention of causing death, or a bodily
injury which is sufficient and in all probability cause the death, the person causing such injury
will be held liable for murder.32
(¶ 21.) It is submitted before the Supreme Court firstly, the victim didn’t die due to natural
causes [i]; Secondly, the Petitioner-I has acted upon his Intention [a], and finally, the
circumstances form a clear chain of events [b].

The victim didn’t die due to natural causes

(¶ 22.) Article 11 of Universal Declaration on Human Genome and Human Rights, 33 Indian
government’s ethical policy documents34 and the Indian Council of Medical Researchers have
given guidelines on the need for the prohibition of reproductive cloning. 35

29
RATANLAL AND DHEERAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 1270 (32nd ed. 2010) [hereinafter Ratanlal].
30
Pillai, supra note 12, at 51.
31
Lokesh Shivakumar v. State of Karnataka, 2012 3 SCC 196 (India).
32
The Indian Penal Code 1860, No. 45 of 1860, § 300.
33
UNESCO, UNIVERSAL DECLARATION ON THE HUMAN GENOME AND HUMAN RIGHTS (1997) [hereinafter
Human genome]; Carmel Shalev, Human Cloning and Human Rights: A Commentary, JSTOR (Jan. 4, 2020, 3:54
PM), www.jstor.org/stable/4065317 [hereinafter Carmel].
34
UNESCO, NATIONAL LEGISLATION CONCERNING HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE AND THERAPEUTIC CLONING (2004)
[hereinafter UNESCO].
35
Id.

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | 5

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [BODY OF ARGUMENTS]

(¶ 23.) It is submitted that there currently is no solid scientific evidence that anyone has
cloned human embryos because of legal prohibitions by various international organizations and
countries.36 It is impossible to determine the life expectancy of a human clone as it is
completely different from animal clones. The contention that clones lives only for nine to ten
years is absurd and unprecedented as there is no study on human clone yet.
(¶ 24.) It is further submitted that cloning has been only done in animals so far and all the
claims that clone can only live nine to ten years are refuted. As per the reports of the National
Human Genome Research Institute37 and US Food and Drug Administration38 cloned animals
age normally and can live the same or more than the donor animal, cloned animals can have
normal lifespans,39 dispelling any false notion that they continue the lives of their DNA
donors.40 Hence, it is submitted that the life expectancy of a human clone cannot be determined.
(¶ 25.) In arguendo, if the inference has to be taken from the different cloned animals, it has
to be seen that the life expectancy of them is much lower than that of humans, and this should
be seen in proportion to their actual life expectancy which is much greater in humans.
(¶ 26.) Therefore, in the present case, it can be said that the High Court stands correct on not
relying on all the documentary evidence submitted by the Petitioner-I41 and neither did the
victim die of natural causes.

The Petitioner-I has acted upon his Intention

(¶ 27.) Any act causing bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death
falls within the ambit of murder 42. This sufficiency of the injury43 with the intention to cause

36
NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE, CLONING FACT SHEET (2017).
37
U.S. FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION, MYTHS ABOUT CLONING (2018).
38
Id.
39
Jörg Patrick Burgstaller & Gottfried Brem, Aging of Cloned Animals: A Mini-Review, GERONTOLOGY (Jan. 6,
2020, 6:30 PM), https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/452444.
40
Kerry, supra note 4, at 38.
41
Moot Proposition para. 16.
42
Ratanlal, supra note 30, at 1329; Jaspal Singh v. state of Punjab, 1986 2 SCC 100 (India).
43
Sudarshan Kumar v. State of Delhi, AIR 1974 SC 2328 (India); Bharwad Bhikha Natha & ors. v. State of
Gujarat, AIR 1977 SC 1768 (India); Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1978 SC 1420 (India); Bakhtawar &
Anr. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1979 SC 1006 (India); Aditya Mahapatra & Anr. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1989 SC
2110 (India).

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | 6

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [BODY OF ARGUMENTS]

death inferring from the nature of injuries inflicted44 results in the offence of murder 45.
(¶ 28.) The doctor who examines the diseased and conducts the post mortem is the only person
who can opine about the nature of injuries and cause of death 46 in which manner of injury is a
relevant factor.47
(¶ 29.) It is submitted that the Forensic Examination report clearly indicates that the heart and
the liver of the corpse are missing, which are sufficient to cause the death of any person and
the report doesn’t indicate any type of injury or marks and it clearly doesn’t indicate that the
cause of death was natural. It is also apparent that the organs were surgically removed, which
the Petitioner-I supplements.
(¶ 30.) Therefore, in the present case, the Petitioner-I had the clear intention to cause death,
and acted on the same.

The circumstances form a clear chain of events

(¶ 31.) In circumstantial evidence, the circumstances should be of conclusive nature and

tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one to be proved 48
and the burden is on the Prosecution but in a serious offence it is not fair to extend the rule
relating to burden of proof to this extent that the justice is the casualty49
(¶ 32.) There must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground
for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the Accused and it must be such as to show
that within all human probability the act must have been committed by the Accused. 50 The fact
that the Accused and deceased was last found together, after which the deceased was not found
the circumstance point toward the guilt of the Accused 51

44
Laxman & ors. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803 (India).
45
Ratanlal, supra note 30, at 471; Jai Prakash v. state (Delhi Administration), (1991) 2 SCC 32 (India).
46
Sahebrao Mohan Berad v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 4 SCC 249 (India); Mafabhai Nagarbhai v. State of
Gujarat, (1992) 4 SCC 69 (India).
47
Sahajahan v. State of Kerela, 2017 12 SCC 96 (India).
48
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 (India).
49
State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, 2002 2 SCC 426 (India); Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B, 2010 8 SCC 249
(India).
50
Hanuman v. State of MP., AIR 1976 SC 343 (India); Sharad Birdi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR
1984 SC 1622 (India); S.P.T. Karuppiah v. State of T.N, (1992) 1 Crimes 353 (Mad) (India).
51
Pohalaya v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 1949 (India).

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | 7

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [BODY OF ARGUMENTS]

(¶ 33.) It is submitted that the Petitioner- I had supplemented that the body has undergone a
surgery and no missing report was registered of the corpse, a reasonable inference can be drawn
that the victim was last seen with the Petitioner.
(¶ 34.) It is submitted before the Supreme Court that the Petitioner-I had a clear motive of
making a clone and using it for his organs to protect his wife, and waited for the same for 10
years. The intention can be figured out from the injuries of surgery, of which the Petitioner-I
has supplemented.52
(¶ 35.) Therefore, in the present case, the circumstances here make a clear chain of events,
which directly links towards the guilt of Accused and the same was pronounced by the High
Court.

II. THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE

(¶ 36.) For a writ to be maintainable under Article 32, direct infringement 53 of the FR of the
Petitioner-I must be established.54 The Respondent contends that the research impediments
because of the Order of the Hon’ble High Court do not violate the FR of the Petitioner-I because
firstly, there is no violation of the FR to research and innovation and Secondly, Human
Reproductive cloning violates Article 21 of the Indonian Constitution.

A. THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

OF THE CITIZEN OF INDONIA

(¶ 37.) Every citizen has FRs that the state cannot infringe on. 55 It is submitted that there has
been no violation of the FR to research and innovation because firstly, it passes the test of
reasonable restriction [1]; secondly, human reproductive cloning is ethically wrong [2].

1. IT PASSES THE TEST OF REASONABLE RESTRICTION

(¶ 38.) Reasonable restrictions for FR can be applied only in the matters affecting the

52
Moot Proposition para. 12.
53
Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 783 (India); Hindi Hitrashak Samiti v. Union of
India, AIR 1990 SC 851 (India); Shantabai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1958 SC 532 (India).
54
Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. v. Rajesh Verma, (2014) 5 SCC 551 (India); Khyerbari Tea Co. v. State of Assam,
AIR 1964 SC 925 (India), 1 H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA 455 (4th ed. 2010).
55
Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 (India).

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | 8

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [BODY OF ARGUMENTS]

Sovereignty and integrity of the nation, 56 morality57 and the public order.58 In the present case,
the restrictions prescribed for cloning passes the test of reasonableness on all grounds. 59 It
hence goes keeping into consideration firstly, the morality [a] and secondly, the public order
of the general public [b].

The restriction prescribed passes the reasonable test of morality.

(¶ 39.) Morality is the doctrine of Right and wrong in human conduct 60 such that Constitutional
morality must outweigh the argument of public morality, even if it be the majoritarian view. 61
In experimentation on humans, the doctrine of informed consent is an essential, legal and moral
principle.62 The Doctrine of informed consent is such that the parties involved will have to give
their consent to be a part of the experimentation. 63
(¶ 40.) Cloning is a reproductive technology, thus the facts that need to be addressed by fertility
doctors or clinics under the existing principles of the doctrine; should include the individuality,
unpredictability, and autonomy of the cloned child. 64 Only deliberate human actions can violate
others’ Rights, but outcomes that would constitute a Right’s violation if those outcomes if done
by human action are not a Rights violation if those outcomes result from natural causes. 65
(¶ 41.) It is submitted that no human cloning should ever take place without the consent of the

56
INDIA CONST. art. 3.
57
Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, (1965) 1 SCR 65 (India); Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodhar v. State
of Maharashtra, (1969) 2 SCC 130 (India); Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra, (1985) 4 SCC 289 (India); Director
General of Doordarshan v. Anand Parwardhan, (2006) 8 SCC 433 (India), Ajay Goswami v. Union of India,
(2007) 1 SCC 143 (India).
58
Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, (1950) SCR 594 (India); State of Bihar v. K.K. Mishra, (1970) (3) SCR 181
(India); Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar, AIR (1962) SC 955 (India).
59
Moot Proposition para. 15.
60
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1162 (10th ed. 2015).
61
Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi, (2009) SCC Online Del 1762 (India).
62
EF Cooke, Germ-Line Engineering and Future Generations: An Ethical and Legal, 52 JILI 3, 5 (2010).
63
Committee on Etihcs, Informed Consent, ACOG (Jan. 1, 2020, 5:45 PM), https://www.acog.org/Clinical-
Guidance-and-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Ethics/Informed-Consent?IsMobileSet=false.
64
Kerry, supra note 4, at 91.
65
Dan W. Brock, Cloning Human Beings, BROWN UNIVERSITY (JAN. 17, 2020, 8:26 AM),
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/nbac/pubs/cloning2/cc5.pdf.

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | 9

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [BODY OF ARGUMENTS]

cloned and the woman receiving a cloned embryo.66 In regards to the consent of the cloned
child, if the pregnant mother or even the donor of the somatic cell are also considered and it is
an issue that can be harassed and abused. 67 The human born out of human cloning will also be
prone to risks of physical and psychological harm. 68
(¶ 42.) Therefore, in the present case, human reproductive cloning fulfills the criteria of
immorality, thereby passing the test of reasonableness.

The restriction prescribed passes the reasonable test of public order.

(¶ 43.) The preservation of public order is one of the grounds for imposing restrictions 69 on
FR70 and is synonymous with public peace, safety, and tranquility. 71 In case of Public disorder
in the society, 72 reasonable restriction73 is imposed. If an activity tends to cause public disorder
it would be restricted,74 even though the activity may not lead to a breach of public order.75
(¶ 44.) It is submitted that, with the gaining media attention, a lot of hue and cry was seen
among the general public succumbing to disorder with a further ailment that could be
reasonably anticipated. Thus, in the future, an individual can be seen sharing their identity with
a or even number of clones. This can without a doubt create utter chaos in the country causing
disequilibrium in public order.
(¶ 45.) Therefore, in the present case, the restriction was in the interest of public order and was
reasonable with lieu of human reproductive cloning which, therefore, passes the test of

66
Kerry, supra note 4, at 66.
67
Seyedeh Leila Nabavizadeh & Davood Mehrabani, Cloning a Review on Bioetihcs, Legal, Jurisprudence and
Regenerative Issues in Iran, WJPS (Jan. 4, 2020, 5:45 AM), http://wjps.ir/article-1-262-en.pdf.
68
Marin Gillis, The Ethics on Human Cloning, RESEARCH GATE (Jan. 2, 2020, 5:45 AM),
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297408833_The_Ethics_of_Human_Cloning.
69
Central Prison v. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, (1960) 2 SCR 821 (India); Sodi Shamsher Singh v. State of Pepsu,
(1954) Cr LJ 735 (India).
70
MAHENDRA PAL SINGH, V.N. SHUKLA’S CONSITUTION OF INDIA 146 (12th ed. 2015).
71
Central Prison v. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, (1960) 2 SCR 821 (India); Sodi Shamsher Singh v. State of Pepsu,
(1954) Cr LJ 735 (India).
72
Virendra v. State of Punjab, (1958) SCR 308 (India).
73
Surjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1965) SC 845 (India).
74
Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra, (1961) (3) SCR 423 (India).
75
Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR (1957) SC 620 (India).

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | 10

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [BODY OF ARGUMENTS]

reasonableness.

2. HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE CLONING IS ETHICALLY WRONG

(¶ 46.) Human cloning is not scientifically safe yet with higher risks involved 76 since humans
are complex living beings with the long term effects still unknown. 77 The child so produced
will be prone to numerous diseases especially because only a small percentage of implanted
clones have resulted in live births, and a considerably large portion of those live – born clones
suffered complications that proved fatal pretty quickly. 78
(¶ 47.) Cloning may even lead to the exploitation of women79 since a large number of eggs
require an equal number of donors are involving hormonal treatment, which is dangerous to
their health. 80 It is also to be considered that in developing and underdeveloped countries if
monetary incentives are offered to the women, they will consent to it at the risk of their health. 81
(¶ 48.) Therefore, in the present case, many ethical issues are seen alongside the entire process
of human reproductive cloning.

B. HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE CLONING VIOLATES ARTICLE 21. OF INDONIAN CONSTITUTION

(¶ 49.) Article 2182 of the Indonian Constitution guarantees the FR to life and liberty. 83 It is
submitted that human reproductive cloning technique violates Article 21 of the Indonian
Constitution depriving a human clone Right to life and personal liberty because firstly, Cloning

76
Rudolf Jaenisch and Ian Wilmut, Don't Clone Humans!, SCIENCE COMPASS, (JAN. 14, 2020, 2:25 AM),
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a3d3/6726a07ddb03f43ca3e43aae6aa26c39b680.pdf.
77
Bernard E. Rollin, Keeping up with the Clones: Issues in Human Cloning, JSTOR (Jan. 16, 2020, 6:02 AM),
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25115600?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents.
78
Harold T. Shapiro, Ethical and Policy issues of Human Cloning, POLICY FORUM (Jan. 19, 2020, 6:02 AM),
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Ethical-and-policy-issues-of-human-cloning.-
Shapiro/99e8a5fcf28c4b46952f67d76cfa25b955430c38
79
Dan, supra note 67.
80
Id.
81
M. Damayanthi & Anita. V. Menon, Ethical and Legal Implications of Human Cloning, IUP (Jan. 24, 2020,
3:21 PM), https://iupindia.in/504/IJHL_Ethical_and_Legal_Implications_of_Human_Cloning_65.html
82
INDIA CONST. art. 21.
83
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Adm’r Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608 (India); Maneka Gandhi v. Union
of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 (India).

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | 11

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [BODY OF ARGUMENTS]

Technique violates Right to live with dignity of a human clone [1]; secondly, cloning technique
violates Right to Privacy [2]; and finally, cloning technique violates Right to health [3].

1. CLONING TECHNIQUE VIOLATES THE RIGHT TO LIVE WITH DIGNITY OF A HUMAN CLONE

(¶ 50.) Life guaranteed under Article 21 embraces the quality of life84 and human dignity,85
including all the basic human necessities 86 which no person can arbitrarily be deprived of. 87
Moreover, Article 11 of the Universal Declaration on Human Genome and Human Rights, 88
Indian government’s ethical policy documents89 and the Indian Council of Medical Researchers
also have guidelines regarding the prohibition of reproductive cloning. 90
(¶ 51.) That the human clones have a conscience and the ability to decide like their donors.91
Any experiment of such beings would infringe their Right to life, even as embryos since they
are considered to contain life and are under constant risk. 92 The research process inevitably
requires scientists to destroy and discard their failed experiments. Any action taken to create
or destroy, mainly based on their genetic qualities and their intrinsic value, would be deemed
to lack of respect for life.93
(¶ 52.) It is submitted that the Human clone will be used for the experiment purpose which
will vitiate its FR and also go through the dangerous process. Therefore, in the present case,
reproductive cloning violates the Right to Life along with the clone’s human dignity.

84
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ram Sharma, (1986) 2 SCC 68 (India).
85
Confederation of Ex-servicemen Association v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 399 (India); Munn v. Illinois, 94
US 113 (1877) (US); P Rathinam v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 394 (India).
86
Shantisar Builders v. Narayanan Khimalal Totame, (1990) 1 SCC 520 (India).
87
Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Asstt. Passport Officer, (1967) 3 SCR 525 (India).
88
Human Genome, supra note 36; Carmel supra note 36.
89
UNESCO, supra note 37.
90
Id.
91
Loredana Terec-Vlada, Daniel Terec-Vlad, Ethical Aspects within Human Cloning, 92 LUMEN 920, 923 (2013).
92
Moot Proposition para. 15.
93
Shih Ching-Pou, Moral and Legal Issues Concerning Contemporary Human Cloning Technology: Quest for
Regulatory Consensus in the International Community to Safeguard Rights and Liberties Essential to the Future
of Humanity, GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, (Jan. 25, 2020, 6:58 PM),
http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=theses [hereinafter Shih].

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | 12

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [BODY OF ARGUMENTS]

2. CLONING TECHNIQUE VIOLATES RIGHT TO PRIVACY

(¶ 53.) Right to Privacy is inscribed under Article 21 that emanates from the Right to life and
personal liberty.94 It guarantees an individual the Right to retain the integrity of the body, 95 the
right to preserve his private space 96 free from physical interference 97 and the Right to self-
determination,98 having autonomy with their internal and local affairs. 99
(¶ 54.) It is thus submitted that there is a violation of the Right to Privacy of the Human Clone
because firstly, cloning would threaten the genetic information [a] and secondly, Right to
Individuality will be threatened [b].

Cloning would threaten one’s genetic information

(¶ 55.) Genetic information can be used to gain information about an individual that is
influenced, caused by, or controlled by genes. 100 Genetic testing is used to identify medical
information, 101 which should be kept secret and confidential. 102 The Fourth Amendment of the
United States Constitution103 also restricts physical intrusions upon employees’ privacy

94
K.S. Puttuswamy v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 809 (India) [hereinafter K.S.]; Sharda v. Dharampal, (2003)
4 SCC 493 (India); PUCL v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301 (India).
95
K.S. supra note 34; Pramati Educ. & Cultural Trust v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 1 (India); Marimuthu v.
Inspector of Police, 2016 SCC OnLine Mad. 10175 (India).
96
Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1 (India); State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan
Mardikar, (1999) 1 SCC 57 (India); Prahlad v. State of Haryana, (2015) 8 SCC 688 (India); Aarushi Dhasmana
v. Union of India, (2013) 9 SCC 475 (India).
97
Jonathan Herringjesee Wall, The nature and significance of the right to bodily integrity, 76 CAMBRIDGE L.
J. 566, 568 (2017).
98
Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 454 (India); Shampa Singha v. State of West
Bengal, 2019 SCC OnLine Cal. 153 (India).
99
State of Kerala and Anr. v PUCL, (2009) 8 SCC 46 (India).
100
Dr. Vidhushi Jaiswal, Psychological Effects of Workplace Surveillance on Employees, and the legal protection:
An analysis, 5 BLR 59, 64 (2017) [hereinafter Vidhushi].
101
1 WILLIAM G. STAPLES, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PRIVACY, 252 (2007).
102
Vidhushi, supra note 111; Spring Meadows Hospital and other v. Hajot Ahluwalia, AIR 1998 SC 1801 (India).
103
U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, FOURTH AMENDMENT: SEARCH AND SEIZURE (1992).

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | 13

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [BODY OF ARGUMENTS]

interests which includes medical and genetic testing.104

(¶ 56.) The development in human genome research and human cloning will increase its
unethical exploitation, leading to a violation of one’s privacy. 105 It includes genetic information
which is intrinsic to an individual’s identity106 and should not be released in the public
domain107 without the consent.108
(¶ 57.) Clones, as unique individuals have the same the Rights as others.109 In scenarios where
the donor waives his privacy Rights, Rights of the clone are necessarily implicated since they
possess the same genetic code.110
(¶ 58.) Therefore, in the present case, human cloning would threaten one’s genetic information.

Right to Individuality will be threatened

(¶ 59.) The Right to choose one’s identity is integral to the Right to live with dignity. 111 The
concept of individuality is the core notion of privacy and autonomy 112 and therefore falls within
the scope of the Right to life under the Indonian Constitution. 113
(¶ 60.) It is submitted that cloning creates a genetic copy of the donor,114 which in turn will
lead to identity problems as two persons will have the same genetic characteristics putting one’s
identity in danger. For instance, confusion in various government identification systems like

104
Michele Simms, Defining Privacy in Employee Health Screening Cases: Ethical Ramifications Concerning
the Employee/Employer Relationship, JSTOR (Jan. 29 2020, 8:09 PM),
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25072536.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Aab69b7f0f24b093ec46b74b987668063.
105
Shih, supra note 104.
106
Lawrence O. Gostin, Genetic Privacy, 23 J.L. ME D. & ETHICS 320, 320 (1995).
107
Ms. Rithika Vidyut Shenoy and Ms. Saisha Raj Orke, The Cost of Human Cloning: A Threat to Individuality
and Diversity, 1 INT. J. LAW. LEG. JURISPRUD. STUD. 1, 14 (2014) [hereinafter Ms. Rithika].
108
Shyam Krishna Balganesh, Genetic Privacy: The Emergence of New Paradigm in Medical Confidentiality,
JSTOR (Jan. 26, 2020, 9:00 PM), https://www.jstor.org/stable/43952133?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents.
109
David, supra note 2; Kerry, supra note 36, at 27.
110
J.D. Andrews & B. Lori, Cloning human beings, CHICAGO-KENT COLLEGE OF LAW (Jan. 18, 2020, 9:25 PM),
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/nbac/pubs/cloning2/cc6.pdf [hereinafter J.D.].
111
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438 (India) [hereinafter National].
112
J.D., supra note 121.
113
National, supra note 122.
114
National Academic of Science, Cloning: Definitions and Applications, NCBI (Jan. 16, 2020, 4:09 PM),
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK223960/.

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | 14

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [BODY OF ARGUMENTS]

that of Aadhar is easily foreseeable, putting one’s private data at risk. Thus, banning human
reproductive cloning is justifiable 115 in light of the sanctity of an individual’s privacy Rights,
preserving their uniqueness.
(¶ 61.) Therefore, in the present case, the reproductive cloning technique violates the Right to
Individuality guaranteed under Article 21.

3. THE CLONING TECHNIQUE VIOLATES THE RIGHT TO HEALTH UNDER ARTICLE 21.

(¶ 62.) Article 21 provides the Right to health as an integral factor of leading a meaningful
life 116 which includes the Right to a clean and healthy environment. 117 It is even recognized by
Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 118 as well as in the Preamble
of the World Health Organization.119 Health is defined as a state of complete physical, mental,
and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. 120
(¶ 63.) People have the Right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health,
without discrimination of any kind. 121
(¶ 64.) It is submitted that clones are susceptible to mental, physical or genetic disorders and
even other life-threatening diseases122 because of the way they are created and the unhealthy
experimental environment they are brought up in. 123
(¶ 65.) Therefore, in the present case, the reproductive human cloning technique violates the
Right to health of a human clone by threatening human wellbeing.

115
J.D., supra note 121.
116
Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India, 1995 AIR 922 (India); Bandhua Mukti Morcha
v. Union of India, (1997) 10 SCC 549 (India).
117
T. Ramakrishna Rao v. Hyderabad Development Authority, 2001 SCC OnLine AP 613 (India).
118
UDHR, UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, art. 25, (2015).
119
WHO, CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD HELATH ORGANISATION (2006).
120
Id.
121
Mohd. Ahmed v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1508 (India).
122
Judy Jones, Cloning May Cause Health Defects, NCBI (Jan. 15, 2020, 6:25 PM),
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1115633/.
123
Ms. Rithika, supra note 47.

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | 15

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [BODY OF ARGUMENTS]

III. PIL BY THE PETITIONER-II IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDONIA

(¶ 66.) It is submitted that the PIL for a complete ban on human cloning through SCNT is not
maintainable because firstly, it will undermine reproductive freedom [A]; secondly, because it
will then also completely neglect the field of therapeutic cloning [B];

A. COMPLETE BAN ON HUMAN CLONING WILL UNDERMINE REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM

(¶ 67.) Cloning is a type of reproductive technology, 124 while the Right to reproduction is part
of both the Right to health as well as an aspect of personal liberty under Article 21 of Indonia. 125
It’s relevancy to human cloning is a Right to use assisted reproductive technologies without
interference by the government or others when made available by a willing provider. 126
(¶ 68.) It is also recognized in the Courts of America that infertile women have a constitutional
Right to use assisted reproductive technologies in an effort to get pregnant.127 The choice of an
assisted means of reproduction, such as surrogacy, can be defended as included within
reproductive freedom, even when it is not the only means for individuals to reproduce, just as
the choice among different means of preventing conception is protected by reproductive
freedom.128
(¶ 69.) It is submitted that a complete ban on human cloning through the SCNT technique will
eliminate cloning as a reproductive option, even for those who will remain childless, thus
eroding the freedom of reproduction. 129
(¶ 70.) Therefore, in the present case, the total banning of human cloning will go against the
FR of reproduction of the citizens of Indonia.

B. COMPLETE BAN ON HUMAN CLONING WILL ALSO COMPLETELY NEGLECT THE FIELD OF

124
Kerry, supra note 4, at 192.
125
Devika Biswas v. Union of India, (2016) 10 SCC 726 (India).
126
Dan W. Rock, Cloning Human Beings, BROWN UNIVERSITY (Jan. 25, 2020, 5:25 PM)
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/nbac/pubs/cloning2/cc5.pdf [hereinafter Dan].
127
Lifchez v. Hartigan, 735 F. Supp. 1361 (Ill.).
128
Dan, supra note 129.
129
Kerry, supra note 4.

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | 16

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [BODY OF ARGUMENTS]

THERAPEUTIC CLONING

(¶ 71.) Therapeutic cloning is a type of cloning through which patient-specific embryonic stem
cells are derived from cloned blastocysts, holding great promise for the treatment of many
human diseases. 130
(¶ 72.) It promises new cures for debilitating diseases since stem cells are not only able to
reproduce themselves, but also have the potential to revitalize damaged tissues and organs. 131
Thus, therapeutic cloning can provide significant solutions to the fundamental problems of
human health.132
(¶ 73.) It is submitted that the country in Indonia is suffering due to overdose of uranium
deposition in its Coastal regions in Parsenia which is why the average life expectancy is
relatively low. 133 It is also to be noted that organ impairments are quite common in the region,
with its success rate is merely 20%.134 Keeping in mind the situation of the country, therapeutic
cloning is an ideal type of human cloning that can help the situations of the ailing parents of
the affected children who are in dire need for better medical facilities and alternative cure. 135
(¶ 74.) Therefore, in the present case, a complete ban of human cloning will include within its
ambit, therapeutic cloning too which is a viable way for a better cure for the organ impairments
which are very imminent in the country.

130
Heiner Niemann, Pluripotent Stem Cells, SCEINCE DIRECT (JAN. 14, 2020, 2:25 PM),
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/therapeutic-cloning.
131
Therapeutic Cloning for Tissue Repair, AUSTRALIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE (JAN. 5, 2020, 5:09 AM),
https://www.science.org.au/files/userfiles/support/submissions/1999/clone2.pdf.
132
Christos Labrou, The use of Therapeutic Cloning in Transplantation: An Aristotalean Perspective, UCL (Jan.
15, 2020, 8:25 PM), https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1470662/1/1UCLJLJ63%20-%20Cloning.pdf.
133
Moot Proposition, para 2.
134
Id.
135
Moot proposition, para 15.

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | 17

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [PRAYER]

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the lights of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most
humbly prayed and implored before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, that it may be
graciously pleased to adjudge and declare that:

Appeal
Petitioner-I/Appellant

1. The Hon’ble High Court was correct in holding Dr. Awanish liable for the murder of
human clone.
2. There is no violation of Fundamental Right of Research and Innovation under the
Constitution of Indonia.
Petitioner-II
1. The PIL filed by the NGO “People for Ethical Research” is not maintainable.
2. A complete ban cannot be imposed on such research endeavors.

Also, pass any order that the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the favor of T HE RESPONDENT to
meet the ends of equity, justice and good conscience.

For this act of Kindness, the Respondent shall duty bound forever pray.

Place: New Delhi S/d-

Dated: 29th March, 2020 COUNSELS for the RESPONDENT

9TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 PAGE | XXIV