Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
TEAM CODE:
TC: 24
MARIA
AND
OTHERS
..PETITIONER
V.
UNION
OF
INCA
AND
..RESPONDENT
OTHERS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................................iv
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................................v
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.....................................................................................vii
STATEMENT OF FACTS....................................................................................................viii
STATEMENT OF ISSUES......................................................................................................x
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS...............................................................................................xi
WRITTEN PLEADINGS........................................................................................................1
1 THAT THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS NOT
MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF INCAN CONSTITUTION AND THE
ACT IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF INCAN CONSTITUTION.............1
1.1
THAT THE
SUPREME
COURTS
POWER
TO
ISSUE
WRIT
IS
THAT THE
FOR
FOREIGNERS
BE
BASED
ON
INTELLIGIBLE
DIFFERENTIA
WHICH
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
&
And
Section
Paragraph
A.I.R.
A.P.
Andhra Pradesh
ART
Art.
Article
Cal.
California
Corpn.
Corporation
ed.
Edition
Guj.
Gujarat
In Re
In Reference
Ors.
Others
PIOs
Punj
Punjab
S.C.C.
S.C.R.
SC
Supreme Court
U.S
United States
v.
Versus
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Baby M, Re, 537 A.2d 1227, 109 N.J. 396 (N.J. 1988)..............................................................5
Baby Manjhi Yamada v. Union of India, (2008) 13 S.C.C. 518.................................................3
Balwant v. State, A.I.R. 1991 J. & K. 20...................................................................................8
Chiranjeet Lal Chaudhary v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 41............................................2
Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, A.I.R. 1991 S.C.........................18
Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 101;................12
Express Newspaper Ltd. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 872;..........................................12
Ibrahim v. R.T.A., A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 79.......................................................................................7
Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1207..................................................................7
Jan Balaz v. Anand Municipality and Ors., A.I.R. 2010 Guj. 21.............................................10
Jan Balaz v. Anand Municipality, A.I.R. 2010 Guj. 21..........................................................3, 4
Jaycee B. v. Superior Court,42 Cal. App. 4th 718 (1996)..........................................................6
Kamini Kumar Das Choudhary v. State of W.B., A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2060...................................1
Kanubhai Brahmbhatt v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1159............................................1
Kedar Nath Bajoria v. Stae of W.B., A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 404........................................................3
L.I.C. v. Consumer Education and Research Centre, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 1811..........................12
M. S.Bhut Educational Trust v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 2000 Guj.160;..................................12
Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corpn., A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 935.....12, 18
Malarkosla v. Mushtaq, A.I.R. 1960 Punj. 18..........................................................................15
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597........................................................12
Manji Yamada v. Union of India, (2008) 13 S.C.C. 518..........................................................15
Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 3313.......................................................12
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 180.....................................12
Om Kumar v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 3689..............................................................12
Pathumma v. State of Kerala, (1978) 2 S.C.C. 1........................................................................9
Peoples Union v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1473........................................................15
People's Union For Democratic Rights And Others v. Union of India and Ors., A.I.R. 1982
S.C. 1473..............................................................................................................................17
Sakhawat Ali v. State of Orissa, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 166...............................................................7
Sant Ram, In re, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 932.....................................................................................13
CHECK
(Feb.
7,
2016,
7:00
A.M.),
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/07/07/will-global-surrogacy-regulated.S...........16
National Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings,Human trafficking for the purpose of
the removal of organs and forced commercial surrogacy, (Feb. 27, 2016, 12:31 P.M.),
http://www.dutchrapporteur.nl/reports/organ-removal-forced-commercial-surrogacy........13
Nivedita Menon, The Regulation of Surrogacy in India-Questions and Concerns, Kafila (Feb.
29, 2016, 6:58 P.M.), http://kafila.org2012/01/10.the-regulation-of-surrogacy-in-indiaquestions-and-concenis-sama.................................................................................................7
Nivedita Menon, The Regulation of Surrogacy in India-Questions and Concerns,Kafila (Feb.
29, 2016, 6:58 P.M.), http://kafila.org2012/01/10.the-regulation-of-surrogacy-in-indiaquestions-and-concenis-sama.................................................................................................8
Patrick Winn, Underworld: Upending an Asian Baby Farm, GLOBALPOST (Feb. 27, 2016,
1:00
PM),
http://mobile.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-
pacific/thailand/110310/thailand-surrogacy-humantrafficking............................................14
Rohini
Mohan,
The
Lives
of
Others,
Tehelka
(Feb.
27,
2016,
7:25
P.M.),
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main40.asp?filename=hub1111008the_lives.asp..................9
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The respondent submits this memorandum for the petitions filed before the Honble Supreme
Court of Inca which have been clubbed for the hearing of this Honble 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.
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. Several petitions were filed:
(i) Maria approached the Supreme Court with a writ petition, challenging the constitutionality
of the Act, contending inter alia that:
a) The law is arbitrary and there no rationale behind the law, as passed.
b) Her human right to be a mother is being violated when technology permits.
c) If surrogacy arrangement is restricted to Incan couples only, then it would have adverse
fallouts.
d) It violates the fundamental rights of the surrogates and is an unnecessary interference in
the life of individuals without serving any public interest or purpose only because of
orthodoxy.
e) The Act prevents the optimal use of technological advancements.
(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 MahilaSamithi 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.
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.
11
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. THAT THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS NOT
MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF INCAN CONSTITUTION AND THE
ACT IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF INCAN CONSTITUTION.
Even though Maria is an Incan national however her husband happens to be a foreign
national and is not an Incan citizen. The law passed by Inca comes within the purview of
Article 13(3)(a).The Supreme Court has the authority to review the petition filed by the
plaintiff but it shall not grant the writ of mandamus. Commercial Surrogacy for Foreigners
(Miscellaneous) Act, 2015does not violate the fundamental rights enshrined under part III of
the Incan constitution Law should not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. It should be based on
intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from
others left out of the group. There should be intelligible differentia and that such differentia
has a close nexus with the object that has been sought to be achieved. The purpose of
reasonable classification has a close nexus with the object that has been sought to be
achieved. The law makes an intelligible differentia on the basis of single women as there
might arise complication, single women are barred from being surrogates as they may get
attached to the child they have conceived. Married women are able to better handle the
responsibility of being a surrogate. Article 32 cannot be invoked simply to adjudge the
validity of any legislation or an administrative action unless it adversely affects petitioners
fundamental rights. Therefore writ petition is not maintainable and is neither in violation of
fundamental right guaranteed under article 14 of the constitution.
2. COMMERCIAL SURROGACY FOR FOREIGNERS (MISCELLANEOUS) ACT,
2015 DOES NOT VIOLATE THEFUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF DOCTORS AND
CLINICS UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(g) OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Though the Constitution of Inca provides for Article 19(1)(g), which deals with the right to
practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business, there is a clause
attached to it which states Nothing in sub clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the
operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any
law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of
the right conferred by the said sub clause .Laws vary widely, and there is no guarantee that a
12
13
WRITTEN PLEADINGS
1 THAT THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS NOT
MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF INCAN CONSTITUTION AND THE
ACT IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF INCAN CONSTITUTION.
It is contended before the Honble Supreme Court of Inca that the writ petition under Article
32 of the Incan Constitution filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. Following are the
reasons put forth for the same.
1.1
THAT
THE
SUPREME
COURTS
POWER
TO
ISSUE
WRIT
IS
2.THAT
THE
LAW
COMMERCIAL
SURROGACY
FOR
FOREIGNERS
32 Sreenivasa General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1246.
33 Jan Balaz v. Anand Municipality and Ors., A.I.R. 2010 Guj. 21.
11
45 Id.
46 Id.
15
1:00
PM),
http://mobile.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-
pacific/thailand/110310/thailand-surrogacy-humantrafficking.
48 Indian Constitution, 1950 art. 39(f).
49 Peoples Union v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1473.
50 Janice C. Ciccarelli & Linda J. Beckman, Navigating Rough Waters: An Overview of
Psychological Aspects of Surrogacy, 61 J. S.O.C. ISSUES 22, 23 (2005).
16
51 A. Pande, At Least I Am Not Sleeping with Anyone': Resisting the Stigma of Commercial
Surrogacy in India, (2010) 36 (2) FEMINIST STUDIES 292.
52 Manji Yamada v. Union of India, (2008) 13 S.C.C. 518.
53 Malarkosla v. Mushtaq, A.I.R. 1960 Punj. 18.
54 Andrea Dworkin, RIGHT-WING WOMEN 182 (1983).
55Elizabeth Seale Cateforis, Surrogate Motherhood: An Argumentfor Regulation and a
Blueprint for Legislation in Kansas, 4 W.T.R.-KAN.J. L. & PUB.POL'Y 101, 108 (1995).
56 Andrea Dworkin, RIGHT-WING WOMEN 184 (1983).
17
CHECK
(Feb.
7,
2016,
7:00
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/07/07/will-global-surrogacy-regulated.S.
18
A.M.),
66 O.P. Rai, The Constitution of India30 (2d ed. Orient Publishing Company 2014).
67Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 101; Mahesh
Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corpn., A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 935.
68 Id.
20
21
PRAYER
In the light of arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Respondent 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