For The Moot Competition of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia College of Law

FOR THE MOOT COMPETITION OF DR.
RAM MANOHAR LOHIA
COLLEGE OF LAW
CASE SUBMITTED BY:
1. S.SRIRAM VASANTH PRASAD – 41413101129
2. P.L.SRINIVASAN – 41413101127
3. B.UMAITHURAI – 41413101141
IN THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 115 OF 2009
ARUNA RAMCHANDRA SHANBAUG (PETITIONER)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (RESPONDENTS)
MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed
on behalf of the petitioner Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug was a staff
nurse working in King Edward Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai. On the
evening of 27th November, 1973 she was attacked by a sweeper in the
hospital who wrapped a dog chain around her neck and yanked her back
with it. He tried to rape her but finding that she was menstruating, he
sodomized her. To immobilize her during this act he twisted the chain
around her neck.
The next day on 28th November, 1973 at 7.45 am, a cleaner found
her laying on the floor with blood all over in an unconscious condition. It
is alleged that due to strangulation by the dog chain the supply of oxygen
to the brain stopped and the brain got damaged. It is alleged that the
Neurologist in the hospital found that she had plantars extensor, which
indicates damage to the cortex or some other part of the brain. She also
had brain stem contusion injury with associated cervical cord injury. It is
alleged in the petition that 36 years have expired since the incident and
now Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug is about 60 years of age. She is
featherweight, and her brittle bones could break if her hand or leg is
awkwardly caught, even accidentally, under her lighter body. She has
stopped menstruating and her skin is now like papier mache’ stretched
over a skeleton. She is prone to bed sores. Her waists are twisted
inwards. Her teeth had decayed causing her immense pain. She can only
be given mashed food, on which she survives. It is alleged that Aruna
Ramachandra Shanbaug is in persistent vegetative state (P.V.S) and
virtually a dead person and has no state of awareness, and her brain is
virtually dead. She can neither see, nor hear anything nor can express
herself or communicate, in any manner whatsoever. Mashed food is put in
her mouth, she is not able to chew or taste any food. She is not even
aware that food has been put in her mouth.
Aruna is virtually a skeleton. Her excreta and the urine are
discharged on the bed itself. Once in a while she is cleaned up but in a
short while again she goes back into the same sub- human condition.
Judged by any parameter, Aruna cannot be said to be a living person and
it is only on account of mashed food which is put into her mouth that
there is a façade of life which is totally devoid of any human element. It
is alleged that there is not a slightest possibility of any improvement in
her condition and her body lies on the bed in the KEM Hospital, Mumbai
like a dead animal, and this has been the position for the last 36 years.
The prayer of the petitioner is that the respondents be directed to stop
feeding Aruna, and let her die peacefully.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION:
The Honorable Supreme Court has jurisdiction to take up this case
according to the Article 32 of Indian Constitution. This matter is of
national importance and the Supreme Court is the superior court in India
where the justice can be ensured.

ISSUES RAISED:
1. Whether this Honorable court has got the jurisdiction to hear this
petition?
2. Whether the right to life enshrined in Article 21 has been violated?
3. Whether respondents can be directed to stop feeding Aruna and let
her die?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED:
The petitioner submits that the above question needs an answer in
the positive.
Issue 1:
The Honorable Supreme Court has jurisdiction to take up this case
according to the Article 32 of Indian Constitution.
“Article 32 of the Indian Constitution states that, a person has right to
move to Supreme Court for getting his fundamental rights protected”.
Issue 2:
“Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees right to live”.
1. Hinch Lal Tiwari v/s Kamla Devi (2001) 6 SCC 496 at para 13, page
501, explains that, “Enjoyment of a quality life by the people is the
essence of guaranteed right under Article 21 of the constitution”.
2. State of Maharashtra v/s Chandra Bhan AIR 1983 SC 803, “right to
life enshrined in Article 21 means something more than a survival or
animal existence”.
3. Maneka Gandhi v/s Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597, “It would
include all those aspects of life which go to make a man’s life
meaningful, complete and worth living”.
The right to life guaranteed under Article 21 embraces within its
sweep not only physical existence but the quality of life.
4. Confideration of ex-service men association v/s Union of India
(2006) 8 SCC 399, “Right to life includes right to basic dignity. That
means, a person has a right to lead a dignified life and not only an
animal or physical existence. There should be certain level of
dignity in life.
In the case in hand, it is clear from the facts that Aruna is leading a
vegetative life and animal existence. Existence which is worse than
animal is nothing but a violation to live with human dignity. The
petitioner does not enjoy the quality of life. She does not know about
her existence at all. Her existence is not meaningful, complete or
worth living. So, there is violation of right to live with human dignity.
ISSUE 3:
Death is not always an enemy but a medical treatment as well. It is
ending a dreaded survival. Her life is an untold misery. By putting an end
to her life, the funds can be used to restore useful life. If she continues
to live such dreaded life, so many painful medical complications would
come up like bedsore, respiratory infection etc. It is out of love for her
that we don’t want her to suffer.
So, please direct respondent to not feed her.

PRAYER:
In the light of the arguments advanced, authorities cited it is
humbly prayed that this Honorable Court may be pleased to
a) Admit the petition.
b) Decide that there is a violation of right to life enshrined in Article
21 of the Constitution.
c) Direct the respondents to stop feeding Aruna and let her die
peacefully. And
d) Pass any such further orders, directions, reliefs as this court feels
necessary considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
Most respectfully Submit
Advocate for Petitioner

For The Moot Competition of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia College of Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

For The Moot Competition of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia College of Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

For The Moot Competition of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia College of Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FOR THE MOOT COMPETITION OF DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIA

CASE SUBMITTED BY:

1. S.SRIRAM VASANTH PRASAD – 41413101129

WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 115 OF 2009

ARUNA RAMCHANDRA SHANBAUG (PETITIONER)

UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (RESPONDENTS)

MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

on behalf of the petitioner Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug was a staff

nurse working in King Edward Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai. On the

evening of 27th November, 1973 she was attacked by a sweeper in the

around her neck.

now Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug is about 60 years of age. She is

be given mashed food, on which she survives. It is alleged that Aruna

Ramachandra Shanbaug is in persistent vegetative state (P.V.S) and

herself or communicate, in any manner whatsoever. Mashed food is put in

aware that food has been put in her mouth.

Aruna is virtually a skeleton. Her excreta and the urine are

discharged on the bed itself. Once in a while she is cleaned up but in a

Judged by any parameter, Aruna cannot be said to be a living person and

there is a façade of life which is totally devoid of any human element. It

is alleged that there is not a slightest possibility of any improvement in

feeding Aruna, and let her die peacefully.

The Honorable Supreme Court has jurisdiction to take up this case

according to the Article 32 of Indian Constitution. This matter is of

where the justice can be ensured.

2. Whether the right to life enshrined in Article 21 has been violated?

3. Whether respondents can be directed to stop feeding Aruna and let

The petitioner submits that the above question needs an answer in

The Honorable Supreme Court has jurisdiction to take up this case

according to the Article 32 of Indian Constitution.

“Article 32 of the Indian Constitution states that, a person has right to

move to Supreme Court for getting his fundamental rights protected”.

“Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees right to live”.

501, explains that, “Enjoyment of a quality life by the people is the

essence of guaranteed right under Article 21 of the constitution”.

2. State of Maharashtra v/s Chandra Bhan AIR 1983 SC 803, “right to

life enshrined in Article 21 means something more than a survival or

include all those aspects of life which go to make a man’s life

meaningful, complete and worth living”.

The right to life guaranteed under Article 21 embraces within its

sweep not only physical existence but the quality of life.

4. Confideration of ex-service men association v/s Union of India

animal or physical existence. There should be certain level of

vegetative life and animal existence. Existence which is worse than

animal is nothing but a violation to live with human dignity. The

her existence at all. Her existence is not meaningful, complete or

Death is not always an enemy but a medical treatment as well. It is

ending a dreaded survival. Her life is an untold misery. By putting an end

to live such dreaded life, so many painful medical complications would

that we don’t want her to suffer.

So, please direct respondent to not feed her.

In the light of the arguments advanced, authorities cited it is

humbly prayed that this Honorable Court may be pleased to

a) Admit the petition.

b) Decide that there is a violation of right to life enshrined in Article

necessary considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

Most respectfully Submit