Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TEAM CODE:
TC: 24
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................................v
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION......................................................................................ix
STATEMENT OF FACTS.......................................................................................................x
STATEMENT OF ISSUES.....................................................................................................xi
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS..............................................................................................xii
WRITTEN PLEADINGS........................................................................................................1
1.
THE
ACT
PASSED
BY
THE
GOVERNMENT
OF
INCA
IS
MUST
BE
FOUNDED
ON
AN
INTELLIGIBLE
THE
ACT
IS
AGAINST
THE
LOGIC
OF
TECHNOLOGICAL
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Section
Paragraph
A.I.R.
ALR
AMPAC
ART
Art.
Article
Commr.
Commissioner
Guj.
Gujarat
N.J.
New Jersey
Ors.
Others
Re
Reference
S.A.
South Africa
S.C.R.
SC
Supreme Court
SCC
SCJ
UDHR
US
United States
v.
Versus
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Abdul Hakim Quarishi v. State of Bihar, (1961) 2 S.C.R. 610..................................................1
B. K. Parthasarthi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 2000 A. P. 156.........................19
B.K. Parthasarthi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 2000 A.P. 156...........................15
Baby M, Re, 1988 N.J. 77 A.L.R.4th 1.....................................................................................17
Baby Manji Yamada v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2009 S.C. 84....................................................17
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 802..............................................7
Bhagwanti v. Union of India, (1989) 3 S.C.J. 361.....................................................................1
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghvendranath Nandkarni, A.I.R.
1983 S.C. 109.......................................................................................................................14
Buddhan Choudhary and ors. v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 191......................................3
Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd.v.Brojo Nath Ganguly, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1571.....9
Central Inland Water transport ltd v. Brojo Nath Ganguly, A.I.R 1986 S.C. 1571...................5
Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 118..........................................7
Chintamanrao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 118............................................1
Chiranjitlal v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 41...................................................................2
Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1861 S.C. 1457.........................................................1
Dr. Mrs. Hema Vijay Menon, v. State of Maharashtra, 2015 S.C.C. OnLine Bom. 6127.........5
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamilnadu, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 555........................................................3
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 746.....13
Jack T. Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)....................................................16
Jack T. Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535................................................................19
Jan Balaz v. Anand Municipality, A.I.R. 2010 Guj. 21............................................................18
Javed v. State of Haryana, (2003) 8 S.C.C. 369......................................................................16
Johnson v. Calvert, 5 Cal. 4th 84..............................................................................................8
Jyoti Pershad v. Administrator for the Union Territory of Delhi, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1602.........9
K. Thimmappa v. S.B.I., (2001) 2 S.C.C. 259.............................................................................4
K.K. Kochunni v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 725..........................................................2
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. States of Madras and Kerala, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 1080.. 10,
19
of ART Clinics
in
India (2005)
http://icmr.nic.in/art/art_clinics.htm...............................................................................13, 17
Jean M. Sera, Surrogacy and Prostitution: A Comparative Analysis, 5 JOURNAL
OF
GENDER
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The petitioners humbly submit this memorandum for the petitions filed before the Honble
Supreme Court of Inca which have been clubbed for the hearing of this Honourable court of
Inca. All the petitions filed are writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Incan constitution.
This memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments for the petitioners in
the given case.
10
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. John, a Christian, is a resident US citizen developed love with Maria, an Incan national,
and a Hindu by religion. Both of them got married in Inca on January 01, 2009. Maria shifted
to United States of America in 2010 and took up US citizenship in 2014.It was discovered
that Maria would not be able to conceive a child. The couple wanted their own baby and so
decided to opt for a surrogacy arrangement.
2. They entered into an agreement with Seema, a 25 year old house maid, mother of a four
year old child, who agreed to act as the surrogate against the settled consideration and on
usual terms and conditions. However, in November 2015, Inca passed a new law:
Commercial Surrogacy for Foreigners (Miscellaneous) Act, 2015 which laid few provisions
regarding the surrogacy arrangements.
3. In view of the above law, the XYZ ART Clinic refused to render services to John and
Maria and Seema because John was foreign national and they had doubts about the eligibility
of Seema to act as Surrogate.
(ii) The Association of Medical Practitioners of ART Clinics (AMPAC) filed a petition
challenging the Act as a violation of their (doctors and Clinics) fundamental right under
Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.
(iii) The All Inca Mahila Samithi filed a writ petition challenging the Act as a violation of the
right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of Inca on the ground that
Surrogacy arrangements with foreign nationals were no different than surrogacy which has
been permitted.
(iv) Single Women (Professional Surrogates) Association filed a writ petition challenging the
provision which restricts the right of single woman to act as surrogate as a violation of
human right to be treated equally at par with married women in protecting their right to
reproduction and right to be a parent and a right to trade and profession'.
v) The Association of Custodians of Traditional Ethics supports the new Law, and in addition
requests a complete ban on surrogacy as it jeopardizes the health of the surrogate woman and
the child; and infringes the right against exploitation. Even conceding surrogacy for Incan
nationals, there is no justification for surrogacy arrangements for NRIs and PIOs.
11
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY MARIA IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE INCAN CONSTITUTION.
2. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY SINGLE WOMEN ASSOCIATION
CHALLENGING THE PROVISION WHICH RESTRICTS THE RIGHT OF SINGLE
WOMAN TO ACT AS SURROGATE IS IN VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHT TO BE
TREATED EQUALLYOR NOT
3. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY AMPAC CHALLENGING THE ACT IS
IN VIOLATION OF THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(g) OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INCA.
4. WHETHER THE ACT VIOLATES RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD OF A SURROGATE
GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INCA.
5. WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE A COMPLETE BAN ON SURROGACY OR NOT.
12
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
1. THAT THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY PLAINTIFF IS MAINTAINABLE
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF INCAN CONSTITUTION AND THE ACT IS IN
VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF INCAN CONSTITUTION.
It is humbly submitted that the Writ-Petition filed under Article 32 is covered under the writ
of mandamus. That there is no alternative remedy present in the given scenario. That the law
passed by Inca: Commercial Surrogacy for Foreigners (Miscellaneous) Act, 2015 is a law
under article 13(a) of the Incan constitution and that the supreme court of Inca has the right to
strike down any law it wants. The act passed by the government of Inca is unconstitutional as
infringes the right to equality guaranteed under article 14 and article 21 of the Incan
constitution.
It should not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. The classification must be founded on an
intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from
others left out of the group. The intelligible differentia being single women does not hold
making a distinction between married women and single women is violating their right to
equality. The human right of Maria to be a mother is being grossly violated the differentia
must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.
Such a law is opposed public policy.
2.
THAT
THE
ACT
COMMERCIAL
SURROGACY
FOR
FOREIGNERS
THAT
THE
ACT
COMMERCIAL
SURROGACY
FOR
FOREIGNERS
14
WRITTEN PLEADINGS
1. WHETHER
FILED
BY THE
PLAINTIFF IS
1D.D. Basu, Commentary on The Constitution of India 3925 (8th ed. Wadhwa and Company
Law Publisher 2007).
2State of Bombay v. United Motors, A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 252.
3D.D. Basu, Shorter Constitution of India 598 (14th ed. LexisNexis Butterworths 2011).
4Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 538; Bhagwanti v. Union of
India, (1989) 3 S.C.J. 361.
5 Chintamanrao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 118; Abdul Hakim Quarishi v.
State of Bihar, (1961) 2 S.C.R. 610.
1
DISTINGUISHES
PERSONS
OR
THINGS
THAT ARE
GROUPED
16Mamta Rao, Constitutional Law 104 (1st ed. Eastern Book Publications 2013).
17 Buddhan Choudhary and Ors. v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. (1955) S.C. 191.
18Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 art. 2.
19 K. Thimmappa v. S.B.I., (2001) 2 S.C.C. 259.
4
24Arvind P. Datar, Commentary on the Constitution of India 327 (2d ed. Wadhwa Nagpur
2007).
25 Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, (1989) 4 S.C.C. 155.
26 State of Gujarat v. Mahesh KumarDhijarlal Thakkar, (1980) 2 S.C.C. 322.
27 M.R.F. Ltd. v. Inspector Kerala Government, (1998) 8 S.C.C. 227 (233).
28 State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, (1977) 2 S.C.C. 310.
7
57 Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 746.
58 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 180.
59 Id.
60 State of H.P. v. Umed Ram, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 847.
61 Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghvendranath Nandkarni, A.I.R.
1983 S.C. 109.
62 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 180.
16
OF
Our
Constitution represents a radical rupture with a past based on intolerance and exclusion, and
the movement forward to the acceptance of the need to develop a society based on equality
and respect by all for all. A democratic, universalistic, caring and egalitarian society embraces
everyone and accepts people for who they are. The acknowledgement and acceptance of
79 Indian Council of Medical Research, National Guidelines for Accreditation, Supervision
and Regulation of ART Clinics in India (2005), I.C.M.R. (Feb. 26, 2016, 18:57 P.M.),
http://icmr.nic.in/art/art_clinics.htm.
80 Jan Balaz v. Anand Municipality, A.I.R. 2010 Guj. 21.
81Anne R. Dana, The State of Surrogacy Laws: Determining Legal parentage for Gay
Fathers, 18 DUKE J. GENDER L. & POLY 353, 363 (2011).
82 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
83 Minister of Home Affairs v. Fourie,(2006) 1 S.A. 524 (C.C.).
21
22
90 Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. States of Madras and Kerala, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 1080.
23
PRAYER
In the light of arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Petitioner humbly submits
that the Honble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
And make any other order as it deems fit in the interest of equity, justice and
good conscience.
14