Moot Proposition

Republic of Industan is a nation that emphasizes social cohesiveness and harmony and works
to in still a sense of solidarity and belonging among its people. It is a democratic, sovereign,
socialist, and secular republic that aspires to build a fair and just society where everyone has
equal opportunities to succeed and live a life with liberty. Industan is committed to protecting
its residents by its powerful constitution and laws established by it.

Prakash Hospital, a leading medical institution in the vibrant city of Bumbai, is renowned for
its advanced medical technologies and compassionate patient care. However, the hospital
currently faces a complex ethical dilemma concerning Mr. Vishal Verma, a 55-year-old
businessman who has been in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) for several months.

Mr. Verma, once a dynamic and influential member of his community, was known for his
philanthropic endeavors and successful business ventures. He enjoyed a fulfilling life with his
devoted wife, two children, and a thriving career. Tragically, his life took an unforeseen turn
when he was involved in a high-speed collision that resulted in severe traumatic brain
injuries.

Despite the diligent efforts of the medical team at Prakash Hospital, where Mr. Verma was
initially treated, his condition deteriorated, leading to his current PVS diagnosis. Months of
intensive care have failed to yield any significant improvement, leaving his family and loved
ones with a heart-wrenching decision.

Faced with the agonizing reality of Mr. Vishal Verma's persistent vegetative state, his family,
led by his devoted wife, Mrs. Priya Verma, has been compelled to confront a heart-wrenching
decision: whether to continue life-sustaining treatment or to consider the ethically complex
option of active euthanasia. This decision, born out of profound love and the unbearable
anguish of witnessing Mr. Verma's prolonged suffering without any prospect of recovery, has
weighed heavily on the family.

In their appeal to the High Court of Bumbai, Mrs. Priya Verma and her adult children have
filed a writ petition seeking judicial intervention to permit active euthanasia for Mr. Vishal
Verma. Their legal argument, while rooted in profound emotional distress, rests on a firm
foundation of constitutional rights and evolving legal precedents.

The petitioners assert that Mr. Verma's current condition, characterized by a persistent
vegetative state with no prospect of recovery, constitutes a violation of his fundamental right
to live with dignity, as guaranteed by the Constitution. They cite the landmark Supreme Court
judgment recognizing the right to passive euthanasia, arguing that the principle of a dignified
death should extend to encompass active euthanasia in cases of terminal illness or irreversible
conditions like PVS.

The Verma family's petition to the High Court has catalyzed a significant national discourse,
engaging legal scholars, ethicists, and the public in a multifaceted discussion regarding the
right to die with dignity and the appropriate boundaries of medical intervention.

Advocates for the Verma family's position underscore the fundamental importance of
individual autonomy and the right to be free from prolonged, unnecessary suffering. They
emphasize society's ethical responsibility to respect an individual's choices, even when those
choices are expressed through legally appointed guardians in situations where the patient
lacks decision-making capacity. Proponents argue that denying Mr. Verma a dignified exit,
considering his irreversible medical condition and previously articulated wishes, constitutes
an infringement upon his fundamental right to self-determination.

Opponents of active euthanasia maintain that the principle of the sanctity of life holds
paramount importance. They contend that any form of euthanasia, whether active or passive,
diminishes the inherent value of human life. Concerns have been raised regarding the
potential for abuse, particularly in circumstances where undue influence or coercion may be
present. Critics also question the legal and ethical implications of granting physicians the
authority to actively end a life, highlighting the potential for a "slippery slope" effect and
unforeseen consequences.

As the case proceeded, medical experts were called upon to provide testimony regarding Mr.
Vishal Verma's medical condition. Dr. Rajan Singh, the head neurosurgeon at Prakash
Hospital, testified that Mr. Verma exhibited no discernible neurological activity indicative of
awareness or responsiveness. He confirmed that all medically appropriate interventions
aimed at promoting recovery had been exhausted without success, leaving the family with the
difficult decision of either continuing treatments deemed futile or exploring alternative
options.

Legal scholars provided expert analysis on the constitutional implications of the case,
examining the interpretation of relevant articles within the country's constitution and its
evolving jurisprudence concerning the right to life and personal liberty. They discussed
precedents established by international courts where active euthanasia has been permitted
under rigorously defined conditions, suggesting that India could consider adopting similar
guidelines to ensure that such practices are carefully regulated and safeguards are in place to
prevent potential abuse.

Ethicists contributed significantly to the national discourse surrounding the Verma case,
raising fundamental questions about the role of medical ethics in end-of-life decision-making.
They debated the continued relevance of the Hippocratic Oath in modern medical practice,
particularly in light of the ethical dilemmas posed by advancements in medical technology
and evolving societal values.

As the legal arguments unfolded in the courtroom, the media played a pivotal role in shaping
public perception and understanding of the case. News outlets, print media, and social media
platforms became forums for both proponents and opponents of active euthanasia to express
their views. The case transcended its legal boundaries, becoming a reflection of broader
societal values and beliefs concerning life, death, and the appropriate limits of medical
intervention.

Throughout the legal proceedings, the Verma family remained resolute in their conviction that
Mr. Verma's wishes should be honoured. They found strength in the knowledge that they were
advocating for what they believed to be morally right, even amidst immense emotional
distress. Their journey became a poignant symbol of courage and resilience, inspiring others
to contemplate the delicate balance between preserving life and respecting the dignity of
individuals who are no longer able to express their own preferences.

Despite the compelling arguments presented by the Verma family and their supporters, the
High Court ultimately ruled against their petition, upholding the principle of the sanctity of
life as a paramount consideration.

The High Court's ruling in the Verma case carries significant implications, extending beyond
the immediate fate of Mr. Vishal Verma. The decision establishes a legal precedent that will
shape how Indian law addresses the complex and contentious issue of active euthanasia in the
future. It compels the judiciary to navigate the intricate intersection of constitutional
interpretation, medical ethics, and human rights, ultimately influencing the lives of countless
individuals who may face similar circumstances in the years to come.
In response to the High Court's decision, the Verma family has filed a writ petition before the
Supreme Court of Industan, seeking further legal recourse. The Supreme Court has admitted
the petition and scheduled it for a hearing on September 19, 2024.

The Supreme Court will be tasked with examining several critical issues in this case,
including:

1. Whether the Fundamental Right to Life Under Article 21 of the Constitution of Industan
Encompasses the Right to Die with Dignity, and If So, Whether This Right Extends to
Permitting Active Euthanasia in Cases of Irreversible Medical Conditions such as Persistent
Vegetative State (PVS).

2. Whether the Legal Distinction Between Passive Euthanasia (Permitted) and Active
Euthanasia (Prohibited) is Constitutionally Justifiable, and Whether Active Euthanasia
Should Be Legalized Under Strict Regulatory Frameworks and Safeguards.

3. Whether the Consent Provided by Legal Guardians or Family Members Can Substitute for
the Informed Consent of an Incapacitated Patient in Authorizing Active Euthanasia,
Consistent with the Principles of Autonomy and Self-Determination Under the Constitution.

4. Whether Denial of Active Euthanasia in the Case of Mr. Vishal Verma Constitutes a
Violation of His Fundamental Rights, Specifically the Right to Live with Dignity and
Freedom from Cruelty and Inhuman Treatment, as Guaranteed by the Constitution.

5. Whether International Human Rights Obligations and Precedents Permitting Active

Euthanasia Under Specific Conditions Should Influence the Constitutional Interpretation and
Legal Position of Industan on This Issue.
6. Whether Permitting Active Euthanasia Aligns with or Contradicts the Ethical Duties and
Professional Obligations of Medical Practitioners Under the Hippocratic Oath and Medical
Ethics, and the Implications Thereof for Legalizing Active Euthanasia.

Note: -

a. All the laws of the Republic of Industan are Pari-Materia to that of the Republic of India.

b. The parties are allowed to frame/add any further issues.

c. The parties are allowed to frame sub-issues as per their own discretion.

d. This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, business, events and incidents are the products
of the drafter's imagination. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual
events is purely coincidental.