ITM LAW SCHOOL, COURT ROOM EXERCISE

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF P.RATHINAM.............................. .....................................................PETITIONER

VERSUS UNION OF INDIA................... ................................................... ..... RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

ITM UNIVERSITY, COURT ROOM EXERCISE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................3  STATUTE REFERRED..... .....................................................................3  CASES REFERRED..................................................................................3  BOOKS REFERRED......................................................................... ........3  WEBSITE.................................................................... ............................... 4  LIST OF ABBREVIATION............................................ .......................... 5  STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..................... .................................................6  SUMMARY OF FACTS........................................................ ................................ 7  STATEMENT OF ISSUES................................................................................ ....8  SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS....................................................................... .9  ARGUEMENTS ADVANCED........................................................................... .10  PRAYER................................................... .............................................................13

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ITM UNIVERSITY, COURT ROOM EXERCISE

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES REFFERED
j CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950 j INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC)

WEBSITES

1. www.munupatra.com 2. www.juris.nic 3. www.indlaw.com 4. www.indiankanoon.com 5. www.indianpundit.com

BOOKS 1. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Vol. 1, 5th ed. 2003, Wadwa and Company, Nagpur.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ITM UNIVERSITY, COURT ROOM EXERCISE

Cases Referred
1. A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27 2. Chenna Jagadeeswar and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1988 Crl.L.J.549

3. Gian Kaur v. state of Punjab, AIR 1994 SC 1844 4. Unni Krishnan v. state of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 2178
5. 6.

Maneka Gandhi v. union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 Basheshar Nath v. C.I.T 1959 (1) SCR 528

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ITM UNIVERSITY, COURT ROOM EXERCISE

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AIR - All India Reporter Anr. - Another Art. - Article Edn. - Edition Honble - Honourable i.e. - That is Ibid - At the same place Ltd. - Limited Pg. - Page Para - Paragraph Sec. - Section HC - High Court u/s - Under Section v. - Versus Vol. Volume

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ITM UNIVERSITY, COURT ROOM EXERCISE

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONER HUMBLY APPROACHES THE SUPREME COURT UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION, 1950 INVOKING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS, ORDERS, OR WRITS UNDER 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ITM UNIVERSITY, COURT ROOM EXERCISE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. Writ petition has been filled by the two petitions at hand .They have assailed the validity of Section 309 by contending that the same is violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and the prayer is to declare the section void.
2. The additional prayer in is to quash the proceedings initiated against

the petitioner (Nagbhusan) under Section 309 of IPC.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ITM UNIVERSITY, COURT ROOM EXERCISE

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether right to die is included within right to life under Article 21?

2. Whether Section 309 of IPC is violation of Articles 21 of the Constitution?

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ITM UNIVERSITY, COURT ROOM EXERCISE

SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS

1. Whether right to die is included within right to life under Article

21?
According to article 21 right to life means the right to lead meaningful, complete and dignified life. It does not have restricted meaning. The object of the fundamental right under Article 21 is to prevent any restriction by the State to a person upon his personal liberty and deprivation of life except according to procedure established by law. The right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has received the widest possible interpretation under the able hands of judiciary. This right is inalienable and is inherent in us. The Indian Constitution says that the right to die is not a fundamental right under Article 21. The Right to Life is a natural right, embodied in Article 21.

2. Whether Section 309 of IPC is violation of Articles 21 of the

Constitution?
Article 21 does not include right to die and hence Sec 309 of IPC is not violation of article 21 . The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chenna Jadeshwar upheld the constitutional validity of section 309, I.P.C. and remarked that right to life does not necessarily signify right to die which is an offence. Same was the opinion of Supreme court in Gian kaur case.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ITM UNIVERSITY, COURT ROOM EXERCISE

ARGUEMENTS ADVANCED 1. Whether right to die is included within right to life under Article 21?

It is humbly submitted before this honble court that Right to life under article 21 does not include right to die. Article 21 of the constitution reads : Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. According to this article right to life means the right to lead meaningful, complete and dignified life. It does not have restricted meaning. The object of the fundamental right under Article 21 is to prevent any restriction by the State to a person upon his personal liberty and deprivation of life except according to procedure established by law.The right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has received the widest possible interpretation under the able hands of judiciary. This right is inalienable and is inherent in us. The Indian Constitution says that the right to die is not a fundamental right under Article 21. The Right to Life is a natural right, embodied in Article 21. However, suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and, therefore, incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of Right to Life. This concept is unrelated to the Principle of Sanctity of Life or the Right to Live with Dignity. Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects the life and liberty of a person. In the case of A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras,1the Supreme Court held that Article 21 conferred protection only against unlawful imprisonment, arrests and other forms of physical restrain and coercion. While arriving at this decision the Supreme Court was aware of the fact that the framers of the Constitution had deliberately inserted the word personal to qualify the word liberty in diversion from the 5th and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Indian constitution under Article 21 confers the right to Life as the fundamental right of every citizen. The Right to Life enriched in Art. 21 have been liberally interpreted so as to mean something more than mere survival and mere animal existence. The Supreme Court has asserted that Art. 21 is the heart of the fundamental Rights provided under part III of the

AIR 1950 SC 27

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ITM UNIVERSITY, COURT ROOM EXERCISE

constitution. 2 The Supreme Court has clearly stated that in order to treat a right as a fundamental it is not mandatory that it should be expressly stated as a fundamental right3. The honble Supreme court in Gian Kaur vs The State Of Punjab
4

observed that, It is

difficult to construe Article 21 to include within itself the right to die. Article 21 guarantees the protection of right to life and liberty and by no stretch of imagination extinction of life can be read to be included in the protection of life. Right to die is incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of right to life as because suicide is an unnatural termination of life. The word life in Article 21 has been construed as life with human dignity and anything which makes the life dignified may be read into it but not that which extinguishes the right itself. However Article 21 includes a dignified upto the end point of death i.e., the right of a man to die with dignity when his life is ebbing out. But this right to die with dignity at the end of life cannot be equated with the right to die an unnatural death thereby terminating the natural span of life. The court further observed that, the cases in which a man who is terminally ill or is in a persistent vegetative state wants to terminate his life by the assistance of a physician, may fall within the purview of right to die with dignity. In such cases termination of natural life is certain and imminent and the process of natural death has commenced. The physician merely accelerates the conclusion of the process natural death which has already commenced. However the question of physician assisted termination of life to reduce the period of suffering when the natural death is certain is still not conclusive. In the case of Basheshar Nath v. C.I.T5a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court had held that under the Indian Constitution no form of waiver of Fundamental Rights is allowed as allowing such a practice could lead to the watering down of the obligation imposed upon the State to provide for the welfare of the people. Thus, it is clear that there is no provision in the Constitution of India, which positively provides for the right to die.

2 3 4 5

Unni Krishnan v. state of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 2178 Maneka Gandhi v. union of India AIR 1978 SC 597

1996 AIR 946

1959 (1) SCR 528

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ITM UNIVERSITY, COURT ROOM EXERCISE

It can be concluded from above argument that if a right to die is recognised, there would be, in the Hohfeldian scheme, a corresponding duty imposed upon the state to provide adequate facilities for suicide and it would also negate the obligation of the State to make efforts to ensure that the citizens lead a happy and contended life.

2. Whether Section 309 of IPC is violation of Article 21 of the Constitution?

Suicide is punishable under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which provides that: An attempt to commit suicide is punishable with imprisonment of either description upto one year or fine or both. Article 21 does not include right to die and hence Sec 309 of IPC is not violation of article 21 . The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chenna Jadeshwar6 upheld the constitutional validity of section 309, I.P.C. and remarked that right to life does not necessarily signify right to die which is an offence. In 1996, a five judge constitutional bench of the apex court in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab7 held that right to die is not a part of the 'right to life' . The apex court further held that section 306, I.P.C. as constitutional and said that right to life does not include right to die. Extinction of life is not included in protection of life. The court further went on to say that section 306 constitute a distinct offence and can exist independently of section 309, I.P.C. As regards section 309, I.P.C. is concerned, the court said that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution did not include the right to die or right to be killed and therefore an attempt to commit suicide under section 309, I.P.C. or even abetment of suicide under section 306, I.P.C., are well within the constitutional mandated, and are not void or ultra virus.

6 7

Chenna Jagadeeswar and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1988 Crl.L.J.549 Gian Kaur v. state of Punjab, AIR 1994 SC 1844

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ITM UNIVERSITY, COURT ROOM EXERCISE

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of issue raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and authorities cited, the council of respondent humbly pray and implore this Honble Supreme court to be graciously pleased to 1. Quash the writ petition filed by the Petitioner in the Honble court of law 2. Sec 309 of IPC is not violation of article 21of the constitution. Pass any other order that this court may deem fit in the interests of justice, equity and good conscience.

Place: delhi

All of which respectfully submitted S/r:______________________ Counsel for the Respondent

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT