MOOTPROBLEMSLS2012

8/3/2019 MOOTPROBLEMSLS2012

1/5

Dr. A.T. MARKOSE MEMORIAL

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

2012

MARCH 09-11, 2012

MOOT PROBLEM

SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES,

COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY,

ERNAKULAM, KERALA.


2/5

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

In the Matter of:

Ms. Sweta Tripati

v.

Union of India & Others

Facts:

1. Rahul Sadanandan, aged 31 is currently employed as Assistant

Professor in Bannama School of Management Studies, Bengaluru and

Ms. Sweta Tripati, aged 27 is a lawyer practicing at High Court of

Karnataka, Bengaluru. She enrolled with the Bar in the year 2007 and

has deep interest in litigation, which was why her family got settled in

Bengaluru. On 01-05-2011, Rahul tied the sacred nuptial knot with

Swetha according to Hindu religious customs at Sree Krishna Temple at

Bengaluru. The marriage was fixed in the month of May taking into

convenience the Karnataka High Court vacation which was from 25 th

April 2011 to 22nd May 2011.

2. According to the religious customs and practices, they moved to his

house, located in the outskirts of Bengaluru, after the marriage. They

spent the vacation visiting relatives and spared a week for honey

moon. With the court resuming function from 23rd May 2011, there

were initial hiccups in Rahuls family as regards continuance of her

profession as an advocate. However, Sweta was at the pinnacle of her

practice and at this stage she was not ready to quit her profession andshe had convinced her husband about that. After two months of

marriage, they decided to move to a flat close to the city, taking into

convenience the work place of both Rahul and Sweta.


3/5

3. As a practicing lawyer, Sweta was workaholic and spends more time in

the law firm. Meanwhile Rahul leaves for college at 9 AM and reaches

back at 6 PM after the college hours. This was initially not a concern

for Rahul, but with passing days, the relation got strained. After 5

months of marriage, the situations got much worsened and due to the

strained relation, she was sent home by Rahul stating that her late

arrival and early leaving makes no sense for marital relationship and it

does not give any space for the enjoyment of marital life.

4. Thereafter, Rahul sent a notice through his advocate to Sweta at her

residence demanding divorce. Sweta was 3 months pregnant and

was under the treatment of Dr. Girish Tripati, a gynecologist practicing

at Bengaluru and a far relative of Swetha when she received the

notice. Three days after the receipt of notice, Sweta, after seeking

advice from Dr. Girish, decided to go for an abortion and the same was

successfully conducted with his help and advice at Medical Trust Co-

operative Clinic at Mysore where Dr. Girish was a visiting doctor too.

All the required amenities and services were provided by Dr. Girish.

Aggrieved by the fact that he was not informed about the abortion,

Rahul files an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to

receive the medical records of the treatment as well as the informed

consent obtained for the same. Based on the records so received and

after satisfying that there was no compelling reason for abortion, he

files a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mysore

against Sweta and Dr. Girish.

5. During the pendency of proceedings, Sweta approached the High Court

under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974, to quash the


4/5

First Information Report and to stop the proceedings therewith. The

petition was dismissed.

6. Aggrieved by this, Sweta approaches the Honble Supreme Court of

India, through a Special Leave Petition. She also files a writ petition

contending that the position retained by the Indian law in relation to

reproductive rights of a woman and related grounds for termination of

pregnancy is against the womans right to reproductive autonomy. In

addition, she also challenges the act of hospital authorities in

disclosing medical records about her treatment, contending that her

right to privacy/confidentiality is grossly violated by allowing access tomedical records in relation to pregnancy. She raised the argument that

the medical records pertaining to the said matters were her property.

7. In the meanwhile, a non governmental organization Child Right

Integration and Protection Association (CRIPA), New Delhi, which is

dedicated to protection of Child Rights sought permission of the

Supreme Court to implead in the writ petition claiming that the position

in the Indian Penal Code 1860 (I.P.C.) and other Indian laws relating to

reproductive rights should not be held as unconstitutional at any cost

as the unborn child has life and repute of its own and must be read as

so to protect the rights of unborn child. The impleading petition was

allowed by the Honble Supreme Court.

8. On filing of the special leave petition, leave was granted and the same

was directed to be heard along with the Writ Petition. However,

considering the importance of the matter and the complexity of the

issues involved, the matter is placed for consideration before the

Constitutional Bench on 3rd March, 2012.


5/5

Documents

MOOTPROBLEMSLS2012