MOOT COURT SOCIETY | SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA

Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune

13th ASCENT Moot Court Competition, 2024

Moot Proposition

1. Ganesh Gill had one objective in life—eradicate senescence. He also had only one

response from every expert—not possible. He wasn’t always so stubborn, though. A

precocious child, he taught himself to question anything that did not make logical sense

to him, and had in eighth standard derived that Newtonian Dynamics are incompatible

with Maxwell’s equations.

2. He met his soon-to-be best friend N. Kidu in their law school Chess club, with each of

their five matches ending in a draw. The healthy competition fostered a deep mutual

admiration and respect, and the two friends began collaborating and constantly

challenging each other to excel. Their crowning achievement in law school came when

they published a paper deriving an algorithm capable of plotting a quantum walk without

being affected by quantum interference.

3. However, the untimely passing away of N. Kidu left a distraught Ganesh Gill searching

for answers he did not know the questions to. Convinced that the uncertainty of death is

capable of being obviated, or at least controlled by Science, Ganesh Gill threw himself

wholeheartedly in the pursuit of eradicating senescence. After a decade of rigorous

research, Ganesh Gill devised a senolytic that targeted somatic cells and eliminated the

likelihood of DNA mutations as well as the likelihood of the cells turning post-mitotic.

To counteract the effect of unbridled mitosis, a further reagent was released by the

senolytic, which mediated controlled mitosis.

4. Having conducted his research independently, Ganesh Gill refused to accept even the

most astronomical offers of buy-outs from pharmaceutical companies. Citing the

1|5
 inspiration he drew from the likes of Salk and Florey insisting that while he will patent

the senolytic—which he named N-Kidu, after his late friend—and make it freely available

to the public under licenses.

5. The senolytic became wildly popular for obvious reasons, with CPSEs being the biggest

vendor of pills made on the basis of N-Kidu. However, within two months, all the

CPSEs stopped manufacturing and selling the pills under instructions from the Central

Government. A week later, directions were issued by the NPPA prohibiting manufacture

and sale of N-Kidu in all forms pending further orders. This was promptly followed by a

flurry of Writ Petitions across various High Courts challenging the directions of the

NPPA. No interim orders were passed in any of these proceedings.

6. However, Ganesh Gill’s formulation was a single-use drug, not requiring repeated

consumption, and it was estimated that no less than 99% of the population of the

country had already consumed the drug. Mortality rates for the said quarter dropped by

over 90%, with many states reporting no deaths.

7. An emergency session of the Parliament was convened, and after extensive deliberations,

the Mandatory Compensatory Cessation of Organismic Functioning Act, 2024 was passed, which

empowered the Government of India and State Governments to arrest and detain

persons for what was in effect the death penalty, for persons who live longer that what

would have been their life expectancy. The next day, Ganesh Gill filed a Writ Petition

under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the Act as being in violation of

his, and every individual’s right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The

Supreme Court issued notice on the Petition and stayed operation of the Act as an

interim measure. However, the matter was mentioned by the Union of India and listed

the very next day. At the assurance of the Union of India that no arrests or detentions,

nor any actions infringing the life and liberty of any person will be interfered with under

the Act, the order staying operation of the Act was recalled. Meanwhile, other persons

2|5
 and organisations filed similar Petitions, and the Supreme Court directed that Ganesh

Gill’s Petition shall be taken as the lead matter.

8. A week later, the Constitution (One Hundred and Seventh Amendment) Act, 2024 was

passed, adding a proviso to Article 21, which read as under:

“Provided that nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any law providing for
mandatory compensatory cessation of organismic functioning of any class or category of persons,
particularly those of an age in violation of the Gompertz–Makeham law.”

9. A Public Interest Litigation by way of a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India was filed by the Uruk Welfare Society, a registered society and

NGO that has been campaigning for abolition of death penalty, challenging the

amendment as being in violation of the basic structure of the Constitution of India.

Notice on the Petition was issued, and the Court directed that persons who are interested

in espousing the same cause need not file fresh Petitions, and may file their submissions

in support of either side in the present Petition itself.

10. Given the provisions of Article 145(3), the Division Bench hearing the matters referred

to a larger Bench the following questions:

10.1. Whether the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India (as it existed prior

to the Constitution (One Hundred and Seventh Amendment) Act, 2024) includes the

right to live indefinitely.

10.2. Whether the concept of basic structure of the Constitution is a static concept, or should

the living document doctrine be applied to it.

The Court, in the order of reference, clarified that the Petitions can be considered only

after the above issues are answered by the larger Bench.

11. A Bench of fifteen judges was constituted to hear the matter.

12. Ganesh Gill and persons challenging the Act largely contended that the right to life is an

inviolable natural right, and cannot for any reason be tampered with. They contended

3|5
 that it is in the nature of science that it will incrementally expand the life expectancy of

humans, and such a situation cannot be any ground for modifying the right to life

guaranteed under the Constitution.

13. The Government and persons supporting the Act largely contended that it is inherent in

the concept of life that it will eventually end, and any change to this must necessarily

require a revisit of the provisions of Article 21. They contended that the Constitution

cannot remain stagnant and must be understood as a living document that evolves as

science and society evolves.

14. The Uruk Welfare Society and persons opposing the amendment largely contended that

the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be a concept that evolves with time. They

contended that rather the concept necessarily has to be static to ensure that an

amendment cannot be made that is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution as

given to themselves by the people of India.

15. The Union of India and persons supporting the amendment largely contended that with

the Constitution itself being a living document, the basic structure doctrine too must be a

living doctrine that evolves over time, especially when utterly fundamental principles of

natural law such as certainty of death change. They contend that the Constitution will not

be workable if the basic structure doctrine remains stagnant.

16. The Supreme Court has listed the matter for final hearing. It directed the parties

concerned to file their written submissions, requiring Ganesh Gill all parties opposing

the Act, as well as Uruk Welfare Society and all parties opposing the amendment to file a

joint memorandum and the Union of India, and all parties supporting the Act and

Amendment to similarly file a joint memorandum.

4|5
Notes:

1. The names, characters and incidents are fictitious, and are created for academic purposes.
2. The parties are at liberty to re-arrange the issues, and to create sub-issues. Sub-issues
have to be wholly capable of being subsumed in the issue as formulated by the Supreme
Court, failing which the Supreme Court shall not hear such issues. The Bench’s decision
on whether such sub-issues are capable of being subsumed in the issues formulated shall
be final.
3. The language of the statutes mentioned in the proposition is not relevant for the present
proposition, except to the extent as are given.
4. The larger Bench cannot go into questions beyond those referred to it under Article
145(3).
5. The parties do not dispute the scientific principles, discoveries, inventions, as well as the
reality as set out in the various paragraphs set out above. All laws of sciences, subject to
the discoveries set out above, still apply.

5|5