1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

TC - 001

BEFORE

THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF BABIANA

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION OF BABIANA

IN THE MATTER OF

NGOs and Activists & Ors. PETITIONER

v.

State of Good Pradesh & Ors ----------------------------------------------------- RESPONDENT

1
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

TABLE of CONTENTS

S.No. CONTENTS Pg. No.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 4.
1.

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5.-7.

2.1 TABLE OF CASES 5.-6.

2.2 LIST OF BOOKS 7.

2.3 WEBSITES 7.

2.4 STATUTES 7.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 8.
3.

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 9.

5. ISSUES RAISED 11.

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 12.-13.

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 14.-44.

1. WHETHER THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION UNDER 14.-19.

ARTICLE 32 OF THE BABIANAN CONSTITUTION IS
MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
1.1 There is violation of Right to Life and Personal Liberty under
Article 21.
1.2 There is violation of Right to Equality under Article 14.
1.3 There is violation of Freedom of Speech and Expression
Article 19.
1.4 Issuance of Writ of Mandamus.
1.5 There is Locus Standi of the Petitioner.
1.6 The exhaustion of Alternative Remedies is not necessary.

2
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

2. WHETHER THE ACT OR OMISSION OF THE STATE 20.-23.

AND HOSPITAL AUTHORITIES AMOUNT TO
CRIMINAL AND MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE?
2.1 There is Medical Negligence by the State Authorities.
2.2 There is criminal Negligence by the State and hospital Authorities.

3. WHETHER THE DEATH OF DR. SAHAI WAS A CASE 24.-34.

OF SUICIDE OR HOMICIDE?
3.1 There is existence of a Complete Circumstantial Chain of
Evidence.
3.2 There are unexplained violent bruises on the body.
3.3 There was Hasty Conclusion of Suicide by State Police.
3.4 There is hospital’s complicity and unauthorized Mob Entry,
Tampering and Fabrication of Evidence.

4. WHETHER THE RIGHTS OF VICTIM GURANGTED 35.-44.

UNDER CONSTITUION HAVE BEEN VIOLATED IN
THE PRESENT MATTER OR NOT?
4.1 There is a clear-cut violation of of constitutional rights
4.2 The Matter Involves The Violation Of legal Rights under
Babiana
4.3 There Is A Violation Of The Principle Of Natural Justice.

8. PRAYER 45.

3
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

LIST of ABBREVIATIONS

S.NO. Abbreviation Full form

1. & And
2. ¶ Paragraph

3. AIR All India Reporter

4. WP. Writ Petition.

5. Anr. Another

6. b/w Between
7. Cr LJ/Cri LJ Criminal Law Journal

8. CrPC Criminal Procedure Code

9. UOI Union OF INDIA

10. Hon’ble Honorable

11. i.e. That is

12. IPC Indian Penal Code

13. No. Number

14. Ors. Others

15. R/o Resident of

16. r/w Read With

17. Sec. Section

18. u/s Under Section

19. v. Versus

20. Dr. Doctor

21. FE. Forensic Evidence

22. Govt. Government

23. BNS. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

24. BNSS. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

25. BSA. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

4
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

INDEX of AUTHORITIES

TABLE of CASES

Sr.No Name of Cases Citation

1. Vineet Narain v. Union of India AIR 1998 SUPREME
COURT 889
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 AIR 597
3. State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for 2007 3 SCC 587
Governance Trust
4. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu 1974 AIR 555
5. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan 1997 6 SCC 241
6. Binny Ltd. & Anr. v. V. Sadasivan & Ors. 2005 (6) SCC 657
7. Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2020 SUPREME
COURT 3969.
8. Skill Lotto Solutions Pvt Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 2021 SUPREME
COURT 366.
9. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India 1982 AIR 149
10. Ramakrishna Mission v. Kago Kunya AIR 2019 SUPREME
COURT 5570
11. Rashid Ahmad v. Municipal Board 1950 AIR 163.

12. Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Bapu (1969) AIR 128
Godbole
13. Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjot Ahluwalia (1998) 4 SCC 39
14. In Re: RG Kar Rape & Murder Case 2024 INSC 613.
15. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1.

16. Harlal Saini v. Union of India AIRONLINE 2019 ALL

1684
17. Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjot Ahluwalia (1998) 4 SCC 39
18. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2004) 6 SCC 422.
19. Kunal Saha v. AMRI Hospital CAL 692, 2866,

5
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

20. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 1984 AIR 1622
21. Anwar Ali v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 2020 SUPREME
COURT 4519
22. Nagendra Shah v. State of Bihar 2021 SCC Online SC 717
24. Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1
25. Satish Shetty v. State of Karnataka (2018) SCC Online SC 29
26. The Arushi Talwar & Hemraj Murder Case (2013) SCC Online All
(Rajesh Talwar v. CBI 14087)
27. Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263
28. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras 1950 AIR 27
29. Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India 1978 AIR 597
30. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation 1986 AIR 180
31. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SUPREME
COURT 3011
32. Mohan Lal v. The State Of Punjab AIR 2018 SUPREME
COURT 3853
33. Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary (2014) 9 SCC 516
34. Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab AIR 2009 SUPREME
COURT 984
35. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal AIR 1997 SUPREME
COURT 610
36. Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat AIR 2006 SUPREME
COURT 1367
37. Romesh Thappar v. The State Of Madras AIR 1950 SUPREME
COURT 124
38. Shri Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. & Ors v. Union Of India AIRONLINE 1997 SC 304
& Ors.
39. Ranjit Thakur v. Union Of India And Ors 1987 AIR 2386
40. State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei 1967 AIR 1269
41. A. K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc v. Union Of India & Ors AIR 1970 SUPREME
COURT 150

6
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

BOOKS REFERRED

 PSA Pillai’s The Law of Evidence - 25thedition, LexisNexis

 Ratanlal & Dhirjilal’s Criminal Law – 12thedition, LexisNexis
 K.D. Gaur, Textbook on The Indian Penal Code, 4th Ed. Delhi: Universal Law
Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.
 Anoop K. Kaushal’s Medical Negligence and Legal Remedies: Universal Law
Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd
 Nayan Joshi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology: Kamal Publishers, New Delhi,
India
 Advocate Ramachandran’s Law Relating to Proof of Negligence: Kamal Publishers,
New Delhi, India.
 Dr. J.N. Pandey’s Constitution Law of India: 60th ED. Central Law Agency

STATUTES REFERRED

 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, Act No 45 of 2023.

 Bharatiya Nagrik Surakhsa Sanhita 2023, Act No 46 of 2023.
 Bharatiya Sakshya Adiniyam 2023, Act no 47 of 2023.
 Prevention of Corruption Act 1998, Act no 49 of 1988.
 Prevention of sexual harassment at the workplace, Act no 14 of 2023
 The Transplant of Human Organ and Tissue Act 1994, Act no 42 of 1994.
 The Representation of the People at 1951, Act number 43 of 1951

WEBSITES

 Judis.nic.in
 www.aironline.in
 www.scconline.com
 www.manupatrafast.com
 Blog.scconline.com

7
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

STATEMENT of JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted by the Counsel for the Petitioner that this Hon’ble Court possesses the
jurisdiction to entertain the present matter under Article 321 of the Constitution of Babiana,
as the Petitioner seeks enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed therein. The Petitioner
respectfully requests that the Court exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions
of the Constitution.

1
Article 32 in Constitution of India
32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part.
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred
by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrant and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by
law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction ill or any of the powers
exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this
Constitution.

8
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

STATEMENT of FACTS

 Dr. Brijeshwari Sahai, head of the Critical Care Unit at Budding Life Hospital, was
found dead on 12.10.2024 in a restricted-access seminar room, with signs of a violent
altercation.

 The state police quickly ruled her death a suicide, attributing it to stress and work-related
pressures, despite evidence suggesting foul play.

 Dr. Sahai was working on a confidential research project for the state government aimed
at developing cost-effective emergency healthcare protocols, which could threaten
powerful private healthcare interests.

 Prior to her death, she reported receiving anonymous threats urging her to abandon her
research and requested enhanced security and relief from night shifts, which the hospital
management denied.

 The post-mortem report was inconclusive, and critical evidence, including CCTV
footage and access logs from the night of her death, was reportedly tampered with or
erased.

 Following her death, an armed mob vandalized the hospital, allegedly targeting sensitive
research files and patient records, amid claims of the hospital's involvement in an organ
trafficking racket.

 A coalition of NGOs and activists has petitioned the Supreme Court of Babiana for a
Special Investigation Team, a forensic audit of the hospital's finances, whistleblower
protections, and compensation for Dr. Sahai’s family.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

DATES EVENT

Before October 2024 Dr. Brijeshwari Sahai begins confidential research on cost-
effective emergency healthcare protocols.

Day Before October 12, Dr. Sahai receives anonymous threats to abandon her
2024 research; requests for security and relief from night shifts
are denied by hospital management.
9
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

October 12, 2024  Dr. Sahai’s body is found in a restricted seminar

(3:00A:M) room at Budding Life Hospital, showing signs
of a violent altercation.
 State police conclude it is a suicide due to stress
and work pressures.

October 12, 2024 Post-mortem report indicates asphyxiation but is

inconclusive regarding suicide or homicide; allegations of
tampering with autopsy records arise.

October 14, 202 An armed mob storms Budding Life Hospital, vandalizing
the seminar room and looting sensitive files.

October 15, 2024 Whistleblowers allege the hospital is involved in organ

trafficking, with Dr. Sahai’s research potentially exposing
these activities.

October 15, 2024 Financial irregularities in the hospital's accounts are

revealed, with significant sums transferred to offshore
entities; Dean Mr. Maheshwari is implicated but
denies allegations.

October 15, 2024 Public outrage grows as it is revealed that the state's
Health Minister received campaign donations from
entities linked to the hospital.

October 17, 2024 NGOs and activists file a petition in the Supreme Court of
Babiana, seeking:
 Constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT)
or CBI investigation.
 Forensic audit of hospital finances.
 Guidelines for whistleblower protection.
 Compensation for Dr. Sahai’s family and
prosecution of those responsible for her death.

October 2024 (Ongoing) The case sparks nationwide debate on healthcare ethics,
government oversight, and the rights of healthcare
professionals. Public and media scrutiny of Budding Life
Hospital intensifies.

10
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

ISSUES RAISED

-ISSUE 1-

WHETHER THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

BABIANAN CONSTITUTION IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

-ISSUE 2-

WHETHER THE ACT OR OMISSION OF THE STATE AND HOSPITAL

AUTHORITIES AMOUNT TO CRIMINAL AND MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE?

-ISSUE 3-

WHETHER THE DEATH OF DR. SAHAI WAS A CASE OF SUICIDE OR

HOMICIDE?

-ISSUE 4-

WHETHER THE RIGHTS OF VICTIM GURANGTED UNDER CONSTITUION

HAVE BEEN VIOLATED IN THE PRESENT MATTER OR NOT?

1
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

SUMMARY of ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: Whether the present writ petition under Article 32 of Constitution of

Babiana maintainable or not?

The present writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable as it involves violations of

fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21. The state's failure to conduct a fair investigation,
evident from missing evidence and tampered records, justifies Supreme Court intervention.
Given allegations of official complicity, an independent probe by SIT or CBI is necessary to
ensure justice. The case raises broader concerns about healthcare ethics, whistleblower
protection, and organized crime, making it a matter of public interest. In Vineet Narain v.
Union of India2, the Court upheld the need for independent investigations in cases of state
failure, strengthening the petitioner’s claim.

ISSUE 2: Whether the act or omission of the State and Hospital authorities amount to
criminal and medical negligence?

The acts and omissions of the state and hospital authorities amount to both criminal and
medical negligence. The unexplained injuries on Dr. Sahai’s body, missing CCTV footage,
and tampered autopsy reports Babianate foul play, suggesting criminal liability under
Section 105 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. The hospital’s failure to provide security
despite known threats and its alleged role in organ trafficking further strengthen this claim.
Additionally, the denial of Dr. Sahai’s security requests and the manipulation of medical
records constitute gross medical negligence.

2
Vineet Narain v. Union of India AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 889, 1998 AIR SCW 645, 1997 (7) SCALE
656, (1997) 10 JT 247 (SC), 1998 (1) SCC 226, 1998 (1) ADSC 1, 1998 CALCRILR 133, 1998 SCC(CRI) 307,
(1997) 7 SCALE 656, (1998) 1 RECCRIR 357, (1998) 2 SCJ 322, (1997) 10 SUPREME 476, (1998) 1
ALLCRILR 529, (1998) SC CR R 278 (India).

2
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

ISSUE 3: Whether the death of Dr. Sahai was a case of suicide or homicide?

The circumstances surrounding Dr. Sahai’s death strongly Babianate homicide rather than
suicide. The presence of multiple bruises and scars suggests a violent struggle, contradicting
the suicide theory. The tampered autopsy report, erased CCTV footage, and missing
access logs point to an intentional cover-up. Additionally, the threats she received and her
critical research, which posed a threat to vested interests, establish a strong motive for foul
play. The organized attack on the hospital and looting of sensitive files further raises
suspicions. Given these facts, the theory of suicide appears to be a convenient narrative
rather than a conclusion based on credible evidence.

ISSUE 4: Whether Dr. Sahai’s fundamental rights or human rights have been violated
in the present matter or not?

Dr. Sahai’s fundamental and human rights have been violated in multiple ways. Her
right to life and security (Article 21) was compromised as she faced threats without
adequate protection. The right to equality (Article 14) was denied, as she was subjected to
unsafe working conditions while influential entities remained shielded. The state’s failure to
ensure a fair investigation further violates her right to justice. From a human rights
perspective, the right to work in a safe environment and protection from violence were
disregarded. The attempted cover-up by authorities highlights a systemic failure to uphold
her basic rights.

3
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE

CONSIDERING THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?

(¶1.) The Counsel for the Petitioner humbly submits that the present writ petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution of Babiana is maintainable as it seeks the enforcement of the
fundamental rights of the citizens of Babiana, particularly considering the gross negligence,
malpractice, and criminal activities occurring at Budding Life Hospital. The Petitioners, a
coalition of NGOs and activists, allege that the state authorities failed to protect life of Dr.
Ananya Mehta and have also been complicit in shielding the criminal activities of Budding
Life Hospital. The following submissions are made to demonstrate the violation of Articles
14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of Babiana, thereby justifying the invocation of writ
jurisdiction of this Court.

1.1 There is violation of Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21

1.1.1 Fundamental Right to Life

(¶ 2.) The right to life, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, encompasses the right
to live with dignity and the protection of personal liberty. In the present case, Dr. Ananya
Mehta, a dedicated physician at Budding Life Hospital, faced life-threatening challenges
due to her involvement in a confidential government project. Despite her repeated pleas for
enhanced security following anonymous threats, the hospital management ignored her
requests. This blatant disregard for Dr. Sahai’s safety is a direct violation of her right to life.

(¶3.) Further, the circumstances surrounding her death raise serious questions about whether
the state effectively protected her right to life. The inconclusive post-mortem report, erased
CCTV footage, and tampered access logs suggest a deliberate cover-up by the hospital
management, thus violating her right to personal liberty.

(¶4.) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India3, expanded the
interpretation of Article 21, holding that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity,
and that state actions must be ―just, fair, and reasonable.‖ The failure of the State to protect

3
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 AIR 597 (India).

4
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

the life of Dr. Sahai, despite her repeated requests for safety, violates these principles,
necessitating the intervention of this Court.

1.1.2 Protection from Organ Trafficking:

(¶5.) It is alleged that research of Dr. Sahai uncovered an organ trafficking racket operating
within Budding Life Hospital. The failure of the State to protect her life and expose these
illegal activities contravenes its duty to ensure public safety and prevent the exploitation of
its citizens. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for
Governance Trust4, emphasized that the state has an obligation to protect its citizens from
illegal activities, including corruption and organized crime. The inaction of the State in the
present case endangers public trust in law enforcement and healthcare institutions.

1.2 There is violation of Right to Equality under Article 14

(¶7.) That Article 14 of the Constitution of Babiana guarantees equality before the law and
equal protection of the law. In the present case, Dr. Sahai was subjected to differential
treatment since the hospital management failed to provide her with the necessary security,
despite knowing that she was working on a sensitive project that exposed her to danger. While
other prominent figures involved in the management of hospital seemingly enjoyed
protection, Dr. Sahai was denied the same treatment, highlighting a violation of her
fundamental right to equality. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil
Nadu5, held that any arbitrary state action that deprives individuals of their rights is a
violation of Article 14. The failure of State to ensure equal treatment in protecting Dr. Sahai’s
safety and conducting a fair investigation is prime evidence of such arbitrary state action.

(¶8.) Moreover, the erasure of crucial CCTV footage and the tampering of autopsy records
point to an institutional cover-up aimed at protecting the powerful figures behind the illegal
activities of the hospital. The selective approach in investigating the case and shielding those
involved in the alleged organ trafficking network demonstrate unequal treatment under the
law.

1.3 There is violation of Freedom of Speech and Expression Article 19

1.3.1 Suppression of Whistleblowers:

4
State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Governance Trust 2007 3 SCC 587 (India).
5
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu 1974 AIR 555 (India).

5
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

(¶9.) That the Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. In
the present case, several whistleblowers came forward to expose the corrupt practices and
organ trafficking racket at Budding Life Hospital. However, the state authorities and
hospital management intimidated these whistleblowers, preventing them from speaking
freely and ensuring that the truth was concealed. The environment of fear and intimidation
created by the hospital and state authorities suppresses the right of individuals to freely
express concerns about criminal activities, especially in the healthcare sector.

(¶10.) The Hon’ble Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan6, laid down guidelines for the
protection of individuals in hostile work environments and stressed the role of the state in
safeguarding the rights of citizens. In the present case, the state’s failure to protect
whistleblowers from retaliation constitutes a violation of their freedom of speech and
expression under Article 19 of Constitution of Babiana.

1.3.2 Suppression of Dr. Sahai’s Research:

(¶11.) That the research of Dr. Sahai, which exposed illegal organ trafficking activities at the
hospital, was deliberately suppressed. The threats she received were a direct attempt to stifle
her right to freely conduct and publish research that was in the public interest. The hospital’s
management and the state, by allowing such threats to go unaddressed, violated her right to
freely express her findings.

1.4 Issuance of Writ of Mandamus

(¶12.) The Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to compel state authorities to
perform their constitutional and statutory duties. A writ of Mandamus is warranted in this
case because the state authorities have failed to carry out a proper investigation into Dr.
Sahai’s death, have been complicit in the destruction of evidence, and have neglected to
address the ongoing criminal activities at Budding Life Hospital. It is established in Binny
Ltd. & Anr. v. V. Sadasivan & Ors.7 that Mandamus can be issued when a public authority
fails to perform its duty within the ambit of the law. The failure of the police and hospital
management to properly investigate and prosecute the criminal activities at Budding Life
Hospital amounts to a dereliction of their statutory duties, justifying the issuance of

6
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan 1997 6 SCC 241 (India).
7
Binny Ltd. & Anr. v. V. Sadasivan & Ors. 2005 (6) SCC 657 (India).

6
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

Mandamus. Furthermore, the Petitioners are justified in seeking this writ for the following
reasons:

 Failure of Investigation: The State police failed to conduct a fair and thorough
investigation, as evidenced by the tampering of crucial evidence and failure to act on
the allegations of organ trafficking. A writ of Mandamus is necessary to transfer the
investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or constitute a Special
Investigation Team (SIT) to ensure justice.
 Forensic Audit of Hospital Finances: The financial irregularities at Budding Life
Hospital, including the transfer of significant sums to offshore accounts, point to the
hospital’s involvement in illegal organ trafficking. A forensic audit, under the
supervision of an independent agency, is critical to uncover the truth.
 Guidelines for Protection of Whistleblowers: The Petitioners also seek the
formulation of guidelines to protect whistleblowers and healthcare professionals from
retaliation. Such guidelines will safeguard the freedom of expression and the right to
life of individuals working in high-pressure environments like Budding Life
Hospital.

(¶13.) Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of
Maharashtra8, held that courts are obligated to issue writ of Mandamus when public duties
are not fulfilled. Furthermore, the case of Skill Lotto Solutions Pvt Ltd. v. Union of India9
emphasized that Article 32 is a crucial tool for enforcing fundamental rights, and a writ of
Mandamus can be issued to ensure the observance of rule of law. Given the gravity of the
case, the Court is urged to:

 Constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or transfer the investigation to the

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),

 Order a forensic audit of Budding Life Hospital’s financial transactions to uncover

links to organ trafficking networks, and

 Provide guidelines for the protection of whistleblowers and healthcare workers.

1.5 There is Locus Standi of the Petitioner

8
Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 3969 (India).
7
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

9
Skill Lotto Solutions Pvt Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 366 (India).

8
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

(¶14.) That the Petitioner, a coalition of NGOs and activists, has the requisite locus standi to
file this Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of Babiana. This writ petition concerns
the violation of fundamental rights, including the right to life, personal liberty, and equality
before the law, as guaranteed under Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution of Babiana. The
Petitioner represents public interest, specifically healthcare professionals and whistleblowers
whose rights are at risk. In cases of public interest litigation, the courts have recognized that
NGOs and activist groups have the standing to bring petitions on behalf of affected
individuals and the broader public.

(¶15.) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India10, expanded the scope
of locus standi, allowing third parties to bring petitions concerning public interest. Given the
involvement of healthcare workers and the public’s right to a transparent healthcare system,
the petitioner’s standing is clear.

(¶16.) That this matter transcends individual rights, involving questions of public importance.
The involvement of a reputed hospital in organ trafficking and the suppression of
whistleblowers Babianate systemic human rights violations. The case concerns not only Dr.
Sahai’s death but also the broader implications for patient safety, healthcare standards, and
the protection of those who expose corruption in healthcare institutions.

(¶17.) The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Ramakrishna Mission v. Kago Kunya11, emphasized
the need for accountability in matters of public importance, particularly when they involve
human rights violations. This case calls for judicial intervention to ensure that the healthcare
sector operates within the framework of law, safeguarding both patients and healthcare
workers.

1.6 The exhaustion of Alternative Remedies is not necessary

(¶17.) The petitioner is not required to exhaust alternative remedies before approaching this
Hon’ble Court under Article 32. The case involves the violation of fundamental rights, and
as held in Rashid Ahmad v. Municipal Board12, the availability of an alternative remedy
does not preclude the issuance of a writ if there is a violation of fundamental rights.

10
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India 1982 AIR 149 (India).
11
Ramakrishna Mission v. Kago Kunya AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 5570 (India).
12
Rashid Ahmad v. Municipal Board 1950 AIR 163 (India).

9
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

(¶18.) Moreover, given the grave nature of the allegations including tampering with evidence,
organ trafficking, and the complicity of state authorities seeking alternative remedies would
be ineffective. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Moin Faridullah Qureshi v.
State of Maharashtra (2020) reaffirmed that a judgment under Article 32 cannot be
disputed, making it the most appropriate forum for enforcing fundamental rights.

(¶19.) In light of the foregoing arguments, it is submitted that the present writ petition under
Article 32 is maintainable. The petition involves the violation of fundamental rights under
Articles 14, 19, and 21, making it imperative for this Hon’ble Court to issue appropriate writs,
particularly Mandamus, to protect the public interest and ensure accountability. The Court is
urged to intervene and uphold the fundamental rights of the affected individuals while
ensuring that the systemic abuses at Budding Life Hospital are brought to justice.

10
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

ISSUE 2: WHETHER ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF THE STATE AND HOSPITAL

AUTHORITIES AMOUNT TO MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE AND CRIMINAL
NEGLIGENCE?

(¶20.) The Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner humbly submits that in the matter at hand, Budding
Life Hospital was at the center of a tragic incident that led to the death of Dr. Ananya Mehta. The
facts present a combination of negligence by both the hospital authorities and the state. There was a
clear duty of care owed to Dr. Sahai, not only as an employee but also as a healthcare professional
working on sensitive state-commissioned research. Despite repeated warnings and requests for
enhanced security, the failure of the hospital to act, such as not relieving her from night shifts or
providing the necessary security considering her threats, represents a breach of duty of care. This is
further compounded by the lack of operational safety, especially when considering the armed mob
that stormed the hospital two days after her death, looting sensitive research and patient records, as
reported by the Association of Healthcare Providers of India (AHPI). The following submissions are
made to demonstrate that acts and omissions of the state and hospital authorities amounts to medical
negligence and criminal negligence.

2.1 There is Medical Negligence by the State Authorities

2.1.1 Duty of Care Owed by the State

(¶21.) The state, through its institutions and health departments, has a clear duty of care to both the
citizens and the medical professionals working within its hospitals. In the present case, Dr. Ananya
Mehta, an employee of Budding Life Hospital, was involved in a state-commissioned research
project aimed at improving healthcare protocols. Dr. Sahai had informed the authorities about
anonymous threats she was receiving and requested additional security and relief from night shifts
to ensure her safety. Despite these requests, the state authorities and the hospital failed to take
adequate measures to protect her.

(¶22.) This duty of care was highlighted in the case of Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak
Bapu Godbole13, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that a medical professional has a
duty of care towards patients and failing to take adequate precautions can amount to medical
negligence. By analogy, the state, being responsible for the hospital and its functioning, has a duty to
ensure the safety of its medical professionals. In this instance, both the state and hospital authorities
failed in this duty by ignoring the security concerns raised by Dr. Sahai, exposing her to unnecessary
risk.

13
Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole (1969) AIR 128 (India).

11
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

2.1.2 Breach of Duty by State and Hospital authorities

(¶23.) Despite Dr. Sahai’s repeated requests for enhanced security measures due to anonymous
threats, the state failed to take appropriate steps to safeguard her life and her workplace. This failure
to act on credible security threats demonstrates a breach of duty of care by the State. The AHPI
Hospital Safety and Security Manual emphasizes the necessity of protecting hospital staff and
ensuring that institutions are secure from external threats. The state’s failure to intervene, despite
being responsible for the hospital’s operational safety, directly amounts to medical negligence.

(¶24.) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjot Ahluwalia14, held that
negligence on the part of the hospital and its staff could extend liability to the managing or supervising
authority if they failed to ensure the proper functioning of the institution. Here, the state, by failing to
provide adequate security to Dr. Sahai, breached its duty to ensure her safety, resulting in medical
negligence. The Hon’ble Court In Re: RG Kar Rape & Murder Case15, observed that the failure of
hospital management to ensure the safety of their employees in the face of known risks was seen as
a significant contributing factor in the court’s ruling. Similarly, in Dr. Sahai’s case, the failure of the
state and hospital authorities to address her security concerns is tantamount to negligence and a breach
of their duty of care.

2.1.3 Causation

(¶25.) There is a direct link between the state’s omission to provide security and the harm suffered
by Dr. Sahai. Her death occurred under suspicious circumstances, and despite clear signs of a violent
struggle, the state police quickly dismissed the matter as a suicide. The erasure of CCTV footage and
tampering of the autopsy report further imply that the state did not conduct a proper investigation,
which allowed the real circumstances of her death to be hidden.

(¶26.) The failure to act upon Dr. Sahai’s requests for enhanced security and the subsequent neglect
in investigating her death make the state liable for medical negligence, as their inaction directly
contributed to the unsafe environment leading to her death.

2.2 There is criminal Negligence by the State and hospital Authorities

(¶27.) The counsel on behalf of the Petitioner humbly submits that acts and omissions of state and
hospital authorities amount to criminal negligence. For an act or omission to constitute criminal
negligence, the level of negligence must be higher than ordinary negligence. It must rise to the level

14
Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjot Ahluwalia (1998) 4 SCC 39 (India).
15
In Re: RG Kar Rape & Murder Case 2024 INSC 613 (India).

1
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

of gross negligence or recklessness, where the state is indifferent to the consequences of its actions
or omissions.

(¶28.) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab16, held that criminal
negligence occurs when a medical professional, or by extension, an institution or governing body,
acts with such recklessness that it disregards the consequences that might follow, resulting in the death
or injury of a person. In the present case, the state’s failure to act on credible threats to life of Dr.
Sahai can be seen as gross negligence, as it demonstrated a reckless disregard for her safety, despite
her warnings. Furthermore, the various Acts/Omissions which leads to Criminal Negligence include:

1. Failure to Investigate Properly: The state police’s decision to quickly conclude that Dr.
Sahai’s death was a suicide, despite evidence of a violent altercation, and the tampered
autopsy Babianate recklessness. This undermines the principles of justice and shows the
state’s complicity in concealing the truth.

2. Erasure of CCTV Footage and Missing Logs: The missing access logs and the ―accidental‖
erasure of the CCTV footage suggest deliberate attempts to obstruct justice, which aligns with
the actus reus (guilty act) required for criminal negligence. The state’s failure to secure crucial
evidence amounts to criminal misconduct.

3. Failure to Secure the Hospital After the Incident: Two days after Dr. Sahai’s death, an armed
mob stormed the hospital, looted patient records, and destroyed sensitive research material.
The state, responsible for law and order, failed to prevent this incident or protect the hospital’s
resources, further compounding its criminal negligence.

(¶29.) Under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, causing death by negligence is a criminal
offense. The state’s omission to act and its complicity in obstructing the investigation falls within the
ambit of criminal negligence, as their reckless conduct resulted in the concealment of the real causes
behind the death of Dr. Sahai.

(¶30.) The case of Harlal Saini v. Union of India17 further strengthens the argument that state
institutions are responsible for the safety of personnel under their supervision. In the present case, the
court ruled that the failure of state authorities to ensure the safety and proper conduct of personnel
amounted to negligence. Similarly, Dr. Sahai’s case represents a situation where the state and hospital
failed to act on repeated warnings, thus breaching their duty to protect her.

(¶31.) Criminal negligence is further established when an act or omission by a party with the duty of
care leads to fatal consequences. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjot

16
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1 (India).
17
Harlal Saini v. Union of India AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 1684 (India).

2
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

Ahluwalia18, held that negligence on the part of an institution extends liability to the managing
authorities. By failing to provide the requested security for Dr. Sahai, the state and hospital authorities
were negligent, and their omission directly contributed to her endangerment, establishing grounds for
criminal negligence. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of
Delhi19, held that criminal prosecution for negligence should be invoked only when negligence is
gross and the conduct amounts to a disregard for the life and safety of others. The state’s deliberate
neglect of its responsibilities, in this case, amounts to such gross negligence, warranting criminal
liability.

(¶32.) Therefore, the counsel on behalf of the Petitioner humbly submits that the acts and omissions
of the state authorities in the case of Dr. Sahai’s death are clear Babianators of both medical and
criminal negligence. The state had a duty to ensure her safety, which it failed to do, resulting in her
death under suspicious circumstances. Furthermore, the actions of the state in failing to investigate
properly, tampering with evidence, and allowing the armed mob to vandalize the hospital constitute
gross negligence, meeting the threshold for criminal negligence under Section 304A of the Indian
Penal Code.

18
Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjot Ahluwalia (1998) 4 SCC 39 (India).
19
Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2004) 6 SCC 422 (India).

3
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE DEATH OF DR. SAHAI WAS A CASE OF SUICIDE

OR HOMOCIDE?

(¶33.) The counsel for the petitioner humbly submits that the present case has been
wrongfully portrayed as a suicide, whereas it is, in fact, a case of unlawful homicide (murder).
It is contended that this incident involves a pre-planned conspiracy to eliminate Dr. Sahai
due to her knowledge of grave misconduct within the hospital administration. The fear of
exposure regarding these illegal activities led the accused to orchestrate her murder and
disguise it as a suicide.

(¶34.) The petitioner further submits that this case is not only about homicide but also a matter
of deep-rooted corruption and organized crime. There is substantial evidence to suggest that:

 Illegal organ trafficking was being conducted within the hospital20.

 Funds obtained through such illicit activities were allegedly used to finance the
election campaign of the State Health Minister21.
 Dr. Sahai had gathered critical evidence regarding these unlawful acts, and to prevent
her from revealing the truth, she was murdered.

(¶35.) Reliance is placed on the case of Kunal Saha v. AMRI Hospital22, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the principle of the Doctrine of Delight and held that
“hospital management, including senior doctors, the dean, the registrar, and security
officials, can be held liable for negligence. The court directed each responsible party to pay
₹10 lakh as compensation to the deceased’s family.”

(¶36.) In light of the above, the petitioner prays for a thorough investigation into the matter,
ensuring that the perpetrators behind Dr. Sahai’s murder are brought to justice and that the
larger conspiracy involving organ trafficking and illegal funding is exposed. Your Lordship,
this case is not merely about an individual’s death but about a systemic failure and gross
injustice affecting countless innocent lives. Justice must prevail.

(¶37.) Thus, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that, through the examination
of specific sub-issues, the learned counsel shall establish that the present matter is a case of
homicide.

20
Moot proposition (factsheet)
21
Moot proposition (factsheet)
22
Kunal Saha v. AMRI Hospital, CAL 692, 2866, 731, 858 OF 2012, SSC 384 (2014) (India.)

4
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

3.1 There is existence of a Complete Circumstantial Chain of Evidence

(¶38.) It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the circumstantial chain of
evidence in the present case is based on the well-established legal principle that “Men may
tell lies, but circumstances do not.” While the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, under Section
323, provides a broad definition of what constitutes evidence, it does not explicitly define
circumstantial evidence. However, in the absence of direct evidence, circumstantial
evidence—comprising relevant facts leading to the commission of an offense—becomes
indispensable in securing convictions. The significance of circumstantial evidence in
criminal jurisprudence has been repeatedly upheld by courts as a powerful tool in proving
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

(¶39.) Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), circumstantial evidence is
not expressly defined, yet its relevance is embedded within the legal framework. Section 2(k)
of the BSA24 defines relevant facts, emphasizing the necessity of connecting circumstances
in a manner that conclusively establishes guilt. Additionally, Section 26(a) of the BSA25,
which deals with dying declarations, is an example of circumstances that Babianate the
cause or manner of death.

(¶40.) In the present case, the petitioner submits that a strong and complete chain of
circumstantial evidence exists, linking Dr. Sahai’s death to foul play orchestrated by
individuals with vested interests. The intent of the hospital authorities, the threats faced by
Dr. Sahai, and the suspicious conduct of law enforcement all point to a calculated effort to
cover up a crime rather than a case of suicide. The critical elements forming the circumstantial
chain of evidence in this case are as follows:

 Deliberate Work Overload to Isolate Dr. Sahai – Dr. Sahai was subjected to
excessive work pressure, keeping her engaged in demanding tasks, which may have

23
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, under Section 3 ―Relevant‖. –– One fact is said to be relevant to another when
the one relates to the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy
of facts.
24
Section 2(k) of the BSA 2023- (k) "relevant".—A fact is said to be relevant to another when it relates to the
other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Adhiniyam relating to the relevancy of facts;
25
when the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the
transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question.
Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were
made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his
death comes into question;

5
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

been a calculated attempt to mentally and physically exhaust her while ensuring
minimal social interaction26.
 Continuous Threats Received by Dr. Sahai – Dr. Sahai confided in her colleagues
about receiving multiple anonymous threats warning her to abandon her research 27.
This fact, ignored by the state police, is a crucial circumstance Babianating external
pressure and potential motives behind her death.
 Suspicious Location of Death – Dr. Sahai’s body was found in a restricted-access
seminar hall at 3:00 a.m.28—a place where unauthorized individuals could not enter
without special clearance. This raises questions about how she ended up there and
who else had access at the time.
 Tampering of Evidence and Mob Intrusion – Just two days after her death, a well-
organized armed mob stormed the hospital29, specifically targeting the seminar room
where she died. The looting of patient records and confidential research papers
Babianates a deliberate attempt to destroy crucial evidence. It is implausible that
such an attack could occur without the complicity of hospital management, given
the restricted nature of the area.
 State Police’s Hasty Conclusion Without Proper Investigation – The state police
prematurely declared the case a suicide within a day, without gathering essential
forensic evidence. No forensic expert was called to collect crucial samples, nor was
the crime scene properly secured, which is a gross violation of Section 23 of the
Police Act, 186130, and standard protocols outlined by the Standard Operating
Procedure for Crime Scene Investigation31 issued by the Directorate of Forensic

26
Moot Proposition .
27
Moot Proposition.
28
Moot Proposition.
29
Moot Proposition.
30
Section 23 of the Police Act, 1861 - .It shall be the duty of every police officer promptly, to obey and execute
all orders and warrants lawfully issued to him by any competent authority; to collect and communicate
intelligence affecting the public peace; to prevent the commission of offences and public nuisances; to detect
and bring offenders to justice and to apprehend all persons whom he is legally authorized to apprehend, and for
whose apprehension sufficient ground exists; and it shall be lawful for every police officer, for any of the
purposes mentioned in this section, without a warrant, to enter and inspect any drinking-shop, gaming-house or
other place of resort of loose and disorderly characters.
31
3. Securing the crime scene:
 In order to protect and prevent unwanted access to crime scene by the people with curiosity or malicious
intentions, a perimeter must be established by police line tape.
 In order to prevent contamination of the scene or any other evidence, the officer must prevent anyone from
entering into the crime scene. Do an overall survey of the crime scene
 Evaluate and establish a path of entry / exit to the scene to be utilized by authorized personnel.
 Evaluate initial scene boundaries.
 Conduct scene ―walk-through‖ and initial documentation.

6
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

Science Services, Ministry of Home Affairs. The failure to restrict access to the crime
scene or preserve evidence suggests an intentional dereliction of duty.
 The continuous denial of security to the doctor even after the threat and no relief from
the night shift.

(¶41.) That referring the five golden principles governing convictions based on circumstantial
evidence, as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra32, are fully
applicable to the present case. The Supreme Court held that:

1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must be fully
established.

2. The established facts must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, ruling
out any other possibility.

3. The circumstances must be conclusive in nature and tendency.

4. All alternative explanations except the guilt of the accused must be excluded.

5. The circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, leaving no reasonable

doubt about the accused’s involvement.

(¶42.) In Anwar Ali v. State of Himachal Pradesh33, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that
motive, when proved, strengthens the chain of circumstances, further reinforcing the case
against the accused. Similarly, in Nagendra Shah v. State of Bihar34, the Court emphasized
that under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 187235, an accused’s failure to offer a
reasonable explanation can serve as an additional link in the circumstantial chain.

(¶43.) Further, in Dilip Sariwan v. State of Chhattisgarh 36, the Chhattisgarh High Court
upheld murder convictions based solely on circumstantial evidence, stressing that when every
link in the chain is established beyond reasonable doubt, the absence of direct evidence does
not weaken the prosecution’s case.

 Identify and protect fragile and / or perishable evidence

32
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 1984 AIR 1622, 1985 SCR (1) 88 (India).
33
Anwar Ali v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 4519 (India).
34
Nagendra Shah v. State of Bihar (2021). 2021 SCC Online SC 717 (India).
35
When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
36
Dilip Sariwan v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023) Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23556 1 NAFR HIGH COURT
OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 452 of 2003

7
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

(¶44.) That applying these well-established legal principles to the present case, it is evident
that the circumstances surrounding Dr. Sahai’s death point to a premeditated crime rather
than suicide. The missing forensic evidence, the manipulated crime scene37, and the sudden
mob attack collectively Babianate a cover-up designed to eliminate critical evidence and
prevent the truth from coming to light. The failure of state authorities to conduct a fair and
impartial investigation further necessitates judicial intervention to ensure justice is served.

(¶45.) Thus, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that a clear and compelling
motive can be discerned behind the death of Dr. Sahai. The circumstances strongly
Babianate that she was deliberately eliminated to prevent the disclosure of critical findings
from her research, which was poised to expose gross mismanagement by the hospital
authorities, involvement in an organized human organ trafficking network, and large-scale
financial fraud and irregularities. The targeted nature of her death, the subsequent
destruction of evidence, and the hospital management’s suspicious conduct reinforce the
inference that Dr. Sahai’s demise was not a mere suicide but a premeditated act to silence her
and conceal the hospital’s illegal activities.

3.2 There are unexplained violent bruises on the body

(¶46.) The presence of multiple bruises and scars, suggestive of a violent altercation,
contradicts the suicide theory and necessitates a forensic re-examination.

(¶47.) It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that a fundamental question arises in
this case: Would a rational person intentionally inflict harm upon themselves before
committing suicide, except in cases of severe mental instability . It is a well-established
psychological and forensic principle that an individual who intends to end their life does not
engage in a violent struggle unless external forces are at play. Furthermore, in cases where
a person suffers from insanity, they lack the cognitive ability to execute such an act with
deliberate intent.

(¶48.) In the present matter, there is clear and compelling evidence that Dr. Sahai’s death
was not a voluntary act but a premeditated execution. The sequence of events strongly
suggests that she became aware of the impending threat to her life and attempted to defend
herself. This is evident from the presence of violent bruises, scars, and defensive injuries on

37
Moot Proposition .

8
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

her body, as noted in the forensic report. Such injuries are consistent with a struggle and an
attempt to resist an attacker, rather than a self-inflicted act.

(¶49.) Additionally, in cases of suicide by hanging, forensic science dictates that a clear
ligature mark—commonly referred to as a U-shaped ligature mark38—should be present
around the neck. This occurs due to the pressure exerted by the noose, leading to
asphyxiation. The forensic findings in this case, however, make no mention of such a ligature
mark, raising serious doubts about the police’s premature conclusion of suicide. If Dr. Sahai
had indeed taken her own life by hanging, a ligature mark would have been a crucial piece
of forensic evidence. Its absence strongly suggests that her death was not self-inflicted but a
result of external force.

(¶50.) Moreover, it is explicitly stated in Paragraph 2 of the Factsheet that Dr. Sahai had
multiple violent bruises and scars on her body39. This is a direct Babianation of physical
assault prior to her death. The presence of such injuries directly contradicts the suicide theory
and strongly supports the contention that she was murdered.

(¶51.) The Supreme Court in Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)(Jessica Lal Murder
Case)40 has categorically emphasized the importance of forensic evidence and witness
credibility in criminal trials. The Court has held that any form of evidence tampering, external
influence on the investigation, or undue haste in concluding a case can severely distort justice.
In the present matter, the hurried conclusion by the State Police declaring Dr. Sahai’s death
as a suicide, despite multiple bruises and forensic inconsistencies, along with missing CCTV
footage and erased access logs, strongly suggests an attempt to obstruct justice. The principles
laid down in Manu Sharma (supra) necessitate a fresh and independent investigation to
uncover the truth.

(¶52.) Relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satish Shetty v. State of Karnataka41 ruled
that when unexplained injuries are present on the deceased’s body, forensic reports are
inconsistent, and the police investigation lacks due diligence, judicial review becomes
imperative. Dr. Sahai’s violent bruises, absence of a ligature mark (which contradicts the
suicide theory), and a post-mortem report that fails to conclusively determine the cause of

38
Nation Library of Medicine and National Institute of Health (NIH. GOV).
39
¶2 of Moot Proposition.
40
Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1 (India).
41
Satish Shetty v. State of Karnataka (2018) SCC Online SC 29 (India).

9
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

death Babianate severe discrepancies. Considering Satish Shetty (supra), this Hon’ble Court
must order an independent forensic examination and re-investigation to ascertain the truth

(¶53.) That the very landmark case of The Arushi Talwar & Hemraj Murder Case (Rajesh
Talwar v. CBI42 exposed grave police incompetence in handling evidence, forensic lapses,
and a biased investigation that misled justice. The Allahabad High Court, in this case, ruled
that where police investigations are unreliable and riddled with procedural violations, a fresh
evaluation is necessary. In Dr. Sahai’s case, the State Police failed to preserve the crime
scene, ignored forensic inconsistencies, neglected autopsy findings, and overlooked crucial
evidence such as the violent bruises. Given such gross negligence, applying the principles
laid down in Rajesh Talwar (supra), it is essential that this Hon’ble Court mandates a fresh,
impartial, and expert-led investigation to prevent the miscarriage of justice.

3.3 There was Hasty Conclusion of Suicide by State Police

(¶54.) It is humbly submitted before the Honourable Court that the undue urgency in
declaring Dr. Sahai’s death a suicide, despite glaring inconsistencies and unverified
evidence, raises serious concerns of bias and investigative negligence.

(¶55.) The counsel for the petitioner contends that the police officers prematurely concluded
the cause of death as suicide without conducting a preliminary investigation. This lack of due
diligence is a clear dereliction of duty and a violation of established investigative protocols.

(¶56.) Firstly, the police failed to conduct a comprehensive forensic analysis of the crime
scene, overlooking crucial evidence that could have determined the actual cause of death.
Secondly, they neglected their fundamental duty to secure the crime scene, allowing
unauthorized individuals access, which increased the likelihood of evidence tampering.
Thirdly, they failed to collect and safeguard crucial evidence, including Dr. Sahai’s
confidential research papers and patient records, both of which were looted by an organized
mob—an incident that strongly suggests collusion between the hospital administration and
state authorities.

(¶57.) The negligence displayed by the police in this matter directly contravenes their
obligations under the Police Act of 186143, which mandates law enforcement officers to
conduct impartial and thorough investigations. Additionally, the failure to secure and

42
Arushi Talwar & Hemraj Murder Case (Rajesh Talwar v. CBI (2013) SCC Online All 14087) (India).
43
Supra Note 11.

10
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

preserve evidence of crime scene violates the Standard Operating Procedure for Crime
Scene Investigation issued by the Directorate of Forensic Science Services, Ministry of Home
Affairs44. This protocol outlines mandatory procedures for crime scene management,
including evidence collection, forensic examination, and restriction of unauthorized access
to prevent contamination.

(¶58.) Moreover, the coordinated effort to suppress critical evidence and protect those in
power implicates the state Health Minister, who had received financial contributions from
the hospital administration. This suggests a nexus between the hospital and the
government, facilitating an illicit human organ trafficking operation to foreign markets. The
involvement of the Health Minister in shielding these criminal activities warrants
prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 198845, for abuse of public office, as
well as under the Representation of People Act, 195146 for his role in permitting unethical
medical practices within the state’s healthcare system.

3.4 There is hospital’s complicity and unauthorized Mob Entry, Tampering and
Fabrication of Evidence

(¶59.) It is humbly submitted that the deliberate failure of the hospital management to secure
sensitive areas and the orchestrated mob attack suggest an attempt to destroy crucial
evidence. The tampering with the utopia report and postmortem report which have both
missing that the death First and foremost, the failure of the hospital management to secure
sensitive areas within the premises is not a mere oversight but a grave negligence. It is well
within the responsibility of any medical institution to ensure that its sensitive areas, which
may contain crucial evidence, are fully secured. The orchestrated mob attack that was
directed at these very areas suggests a premeditated effort to destroy evidence. This act of
negligence, if not deliberate, would still raise questions about the competence of the hospital
authorities in safeguarding vital information.

(¶60.) The tampering of the autopsy report postmortem report only strengthens our
argument. Both documents, which are central to understanding the cause of death, are
missing key information, including the cause and time of death. This deliberate omission or
manipulation of crucial details raises grave concerns about the integrity of the investigation.

44
Supra Note 12.
45
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ACT NO. 49 OF 1988 [9th September 1988.]
46
The Representation of People Act, 1951 (43 OF 1950) [12th May, 1950.]

1
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

(¶61.) The erasure of CCTV footage, a critical piece of evidence, further points to a
concerted effort to conceal what transpired within those walls. Such actions Babianate a
clear intent to mislead and obstruct the judicial process, breaching the trust of both the
public and the legal system.

(¶62.) Moreover, the very fact that the postmortem was conducted within the same hospital
brings forth a significant conflict of interest. A medical expert's duty is to present a truthful,
unbiased report, yet we are faced with a situation where the expert involved may have been
influenced by the hospital's vested interests. This potential compromise is compounded by
the hospital’s failure to act in accordance with medical ethics and standards. The National
Medical Commission Act 2019 holds these experts to high standards, and their inability to
provide a clear, objective report must be scrutinized. How can we trust a report that may have
been fabricated to serve the interests of those with a stake in the outcome?

(¶63.) The hospital's guidance to the organized mob that looted confidential patient records
and research data is yet another breach of ethical conduct and legal responsibility. The
institution’s duty to safeguard patient information is enshrined not only in medical ethics but
also in laws protecting sensitive data. The Association of Healthcare Providers of India
(AHPI) sets clear guidelines for safeguarding such information 47, and the hospital’s
failure to adhere to these guidelines points to a serious violation. This gross negligence in
securing patient records, protected under the Indian Society Act, 1860, raises questions about
the hospital’s intent and its disregard for the law.

(¶64.) Finally, we must address the issue of evidence manipulation and its implications on
the admissibility of such evidence in court. The Supreme Court, in the case of Selvi & Ors.
v. State of Karnataka48, held that tampered or fabricated evidence is inadmissible in a court
of law. The actions taken to alter or erase vital records, including the autopsy and postmortem
reports, are clear efforts to obscure the truth. Under the Indian Evidence Act and the Hearsay
Rule, such evidence cannot be relied upon, as it is tainted and unreliable.

(¶65.) In the landmark case of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Another49 The
Supreme Court defined negligence as the failure to exercise ordinary care or skill, resulting

47
The Association of Healthcare Providers of India (AHPI) sets clear guidelines for safeguarding such
information guidelines in hospital Management.
48
Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263 (India).
49
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Another (2005) 6 SCC 1 (India).

2
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

in damage to the plaintiff. The court distinguished between medical negligence and criminal
negligence. Also while referring to the judgment of Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management
Committee50. The UK court held that negligence arises when expected standards of care are
not met. However, if due care is exercised, negligence cannot be established. Hospital
authority is liable under the punishment of The Transplantation Of Human Organs And
Tissues Act, 199451 under section 18,19,19A which states that as follows:

Section 18: Punishment for removal of human organ without authority

(1) : If any person associated with a hospital assists in or conducts the removal of a
human organ without the necessary legal authorization, they can face imprisonment
for up to 10 years and a fine up to ₹20 lakh.

(2) : If a registered medical practitioner is convicted under this provision, their name
will be reported to the State Medical Council for disciplinary action, which could
include suspension or permanent removal from the medical register.

(3) : If someone assists in the removal of human tissue without authorization, they can
be sentenced to up to 3 years in prison and a fine up to ₹5 lakh.

Section 19: Punishment for commercial dealings in human organs

 This section specifically addresses illegal commercial transactions involving human

organs. It includes:

o Making or receiving payments for the supply of human organs.

o Offering to supply human organs for payment.

o Seeking individuals willing to supply organs for payment or negotiating deals

involving human organs.

o Participating in or controlling bodies (such as companies or societies) that

engage in such activities.

50
Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (2005) (India)
51
The Transplantation Of Human Organs And Tissues Act, 1994 , Transplantation of Human Organs and
Tissues Act (THOTA), National Organ Transplant Program (NOTP) including NOTTO/ROTTOs/SOTTOs

3
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

 Violations can lead to severe criminal penalties, including imprisonment and

significant fines.

Section 19A: Punishment for illegal dealings in human tissues

Section 19A applies to illegal activities related to human tissues, similar to Section 19 for
organs:

(a) : Making or receiving payments for human tissues.

(b) : Seeking individuals willing to supply human tissues for payment.

(c) : Offering to supply human tissue for payment.

(d) : Initiating or negotiating arrangements involving payment for human tissues.

(e) : Managing or controlling any organization involved in such illegal dealings.

(f) : Publishing or distributing advertisements related to the illegal trade in human

tissues.

(g) : Abetting or helping prepare false documents (e.g., affidavits) to falsely establish
the donation of human tissues as being voluntary.

Violators face imprisonment from 1 to 3 years and fines ranging from ₹5 lakh to ₹25
lakh.

(¶66.) Thus, it is humbly submitted before the Honourable Court of law by the Council of
petitioner that the present case before you involves a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the
death of Ms. Sahai, who was likely murdered to prevent her from exposing illegal activities,
including financial fraud, organ trafficking, and illegal medical practices within the hospital.
The hospital authorities, with support from certain state elements, have attempted to cover
up the true cause of death by altering key evidence, including postmortem reports and CCTV
footage. These actions are a clear obstruction of justice. We respectfully request that the Court
investigate these efforts to conceal the truth and hold those responsible accountable.

4
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE RIGHTS OF VICTIM GURANGTED UNDER

CONSTITUION HAVE BEEN VIOLATED IN THE PRESENT MATTER OR NOT?

(¶66.) With due respect and standing before this esteemed bench, the counsel for the
petitioner humbly submits that the present matter involves a clear and undeniable violation
of fundamental rights and humanitarian rights and it is a well-settled principle that “To deny
people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.” – Nelson Mandela52

(¶67.) While the primary focus is on the infringement of Ms. Sahai’s fundamental rights, it
is crucial to recognize the broader implications of this case. The violation extends beyond Ms.
Sahai to the general public, particularly individuals who are compelled to purchase
emergency medicines at exorbitant prices or those who are deprived of life-saving organ
transplants due to unethical cross-border organ trade by hospital authorities. This systemic
malpractice has led to an indirect but grave violation of the fundamental and humanitarian
rights of the public at large.

(¶68.) A landmark case that establishes that even the courts cannot breach a person's
fundamental rights or human rights, and no one can be deprived of life except through due
process of law, is A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras53 and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India54.

(¶69.) Specifically, in Ms. Sahai’s case, the matter entails a blatant breach of Article 2155 of
the Constitution of Babiana (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) – The circumstances
leading to Ms. Sahai’s death constitute a direct violation of his right to life and dignity.
Article 19 of the Constitution of Babiana (Freedom of Speech and Expression, etc.) – Ms.
Sahai’s fundamental freedoms were unlawfully curtailed, further exacerbating the injustice
he suffered. Principles of Natural Justice56 – The denial of due process, fair hearing, and
just treatment in this case represents a serious departure from the principles of natural
justice. Violation of Humanitarian Rights – The acts committed in the present matter not only
infringe

52
Nelson Mandela South African anti-apartheid activist and politician who served as the first president of South
Africa from 1994 to 1999 in his book ― long walk to freedom‖.
53
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) 1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88, AIR 1950 SUPREME COURT 27, 1963
MADLW 638 (India).
54
Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621 (India).
55
Article 21 of the Constitution of India 1950 protects the right to life and personal liberty.
56
Natural Justice implies fairness, reasonableness, equity and equality. Natural Justice is a concept of Common
5
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

Law, and it is the Common Law world counterpart of the American concept of 'procedural due process.

6
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

upon Ms. Sahai’s rights but also contravene internationally recognized humanitarian rights,
affecting the wider public.

(¶70.) Focusing on the book of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Federation vs Freedom (1936) states
that "The fundamental rights are not gifts from the state to the citizens but are inherent
in every individual57." – Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

(¶71.) Thus, the counsel for the petitioner will present substantive arguments and evidence
to establish, beyond doubt, that the present matter involves a clear and egregious violation of
fundamental rights and humanitarian rights.

4.1 There is a clear-cut violation of Article 21 and Article 19 of the Constitution of

Babiana.

(¶72.) "No law or authority can take away the fundamental rights of an individual; their
violation is an attack on the soul of the Constitution." – Justice H.R. Khanna

(¶73.) It is humbly submitted before the court of law that Article 21 of the constitution of
BabianaI Says that “Protection of life and personal liberty-No person shall be deprived of
his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

(¶74.) This means that every individual has the right to live, and their life cannot be taken
away except by the prescribed legal procedures. The right to life encompasses various
aspects, including the right to live with dignity, the right to livelihood, and the right to a
healthy environment. Article 21 also protects the personal liberty of individuals. It states that
no person shall be deprived of their personal liberty except according to the procedure
established by law. Personal liberty includes the freedom to move freely, the freedom to
choose one's place of residence, and the freedom to engage in any lawful occupation or
profession

(¶75.) That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation58,
recognized the right to livelihood as an integral part of the right to life under Article 21. It
held that the eviction of pavement dwellers without providing alternative arrangements
would violate their right to life and personal liberty.

57
On the book of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar ( Father of The Indian Constitution) Federation vs Freedom (1936)
58
Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. Etc on 10 July, 1985 , 1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR
SUPL. (2) 51, AIR 1986 SUPREME COURT 180, 1986 CRILR(SC&MP) 23, 1985 (3) SCC 545, (1985) 2
BOM CR 434.

7
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

(¶76.) In the landmark judgment, Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan59, the Supreme Court
addressed the issue of sexual harassment at the workplace. The court held that the right to a
safe and secure working environment is a fundamental right flowing from Article 21. It laid
down guidelines to prevent and redress sexual harassment at workplaces until appropriate
legislation was enacted.

(¶77.) In the present case, Dr. Sahai repeatedly requested enhanced security and relief from
night shifts due to the challenges and threats faced. However, these requests were denied on
the grounds of operational priorities, disregarding the urgency and severity of the situation60.

(¶78.) The continuous denial of such fundamental relief not only exacerbated Dr. Sahai’s
difficulties but also subjected them to severe harassment, which could have been either
physical or mental in nature. The presence of such harassment can be evidently established
through visible scars and marks on Dr. Sahai’s body, serving as concrete proof of the distress
and suffering endured.

(¶79.) This situation highlights a grave violation of fundamental and humanitarian rights, as
the failure to provide adequate protection and necessary accommodations directly
contributed to the physical and psychological trauma faced by Dr. Sahai.

(¶80.) The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of Babiana encompasses not just
the protection of physical existence but also the guarantee of dignity and fair treatment, both
in life and after death. The abrupt conclusion by the state police that Dr. Ananya Mehta’s
death was a suicide, despite clear evidence of injuries suggestive of a violent struggle, raises
serious constitutional concerns. The failure to conduct a thorough and unbiased investigation
deprives Dr. Sahai of justice and undermines public confidence in the rule of law. The
petitioner contends that the callous handling of the case, including the alleged tampering of
autopsy records and missing access logs, reflects a systematic attempt to suppress the truth,
violating Dr. Sahai’s right to dignity even after death.

59
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3011, 1997 AIR SCW 3043, 1997 LAB. I. C.
2890, 1997 CRILR(SC MAH GUJ) 749, 1997 LAB LR 991, (1997) 3 ALLCRILR 283, (1997) 2 CHANDCRIC
112, (1997) 24 CRILT 455, (1997) 7 JT 384 (SC), 1997 SCC(CRI) 932,
60
Moot Proposition.

8
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

(¶80.) A fair investigation61 is a fundamental component of the criminal justice system, and
any failure in this regard constitutes a direct violation of Article 21. The role of the state police
in prematurely declaring the case as suicide, without exploring alternative possibilities,
suggests a deliberate effort to shield influential individuals. Reports of law enforcement
officers seen leaving the hospital with confidential files further support allegations of
evidence tampering. Moreover, the erasure of CCTV footage and the disappearance of key
access logs point to a coordinated cover-up rather than a genuine investigative effort. The
involvement of high-ranking officials, including the state’s Health Minister—who has been
linked to financial contributions from entities associated with Budding Life Hospital—
creates a reasonable apprehension of bias. Judicial precedents emphasize that an
investigation must not only be free from bias but also appear to be so in order to uphold
public faith in the justice system (Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary62, and
Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab63)

(¶81.) The Supreme Court of Babiana has consistently held that a fair, impartial, and
transparent investigation is an essential facet of Article 21. In cases such as D.K. Basu v.
State of West Bengal64 and Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat65, the Court has
underscored the need for an unbiased investigative mechanism, especially when state
authorities are alleged to be complicit. The petitioner submits that given the glaring lapses in
the present case—ranging from tampered evidence to potential political interference—there
exists an overwhelming need for judicial intervention to restore faith in the legal system.
Thus it is humbly submitted by the counsel that the matter involves the violation of the right
to fair investigation,

 Right to life
 Right to die with dignity
 Right to Safer Workplace Environment

61
Mohan Lal v. The State Of Punjab on 16 August 2018 AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 3853, 2019 CRI LJ 420,
(2018) 189 ALLINDCAS 26 (SC), (2018) 104 ALLCRIC 977, (2018) 189 ALLINDCAS 26, (India).
62
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary (2014) 9 SCC 516 (Judgement dated 25.08. 2014) (―M.L. Sharma-
I‖ for short) (India).
63
Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 984, 2009 AIR SCW 60, AIR 2011
SC (CRIMINAL) 1803, 2009 (2) SERVLJ 371 SC, 2009 (1) SCC(CRI) 523, 2009 (1) SCC 441, (India).
64
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 610, 1997 AIR SCW 233, 1997 (1) SCC
416, 1998 CALCRILR 45, (1997) 13 OCR 214, (1997) 1 CURCRIR 81, 1997 SRILJ 236, (India).
65
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 1367, 2006 (3) SCC 374, 2006
AIR SCW 1340, 2006 (1) GCD 615 SC, 2006 (2) CHANDCRIC 137, 2006 (3) SCALE 104 , (India).

9
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

(¶82.) The present matter canters around a clear violation of freedom of speech and
expression under Article 19 of the Constitution of Babiana. Article 19(1) guarantees
every individual the right to freedom of speech and expression, which includes the right to
disseminate information and express opinions freely.

(¶83.) In the case of Dr. Sahai, his research focused on exposing the mismanagement within
the hospital authority, human organ trafficking, financial irregularities, and the involvement
of state authorities, including the Health Minister. In response to this critical work, the
hospital authority and state machinery sought to suppress Dr. Sahai’s voice through violent
means, ultimately leading to his murder. Moreover, an organized mob was employed to
destroy and fabricate evidence66, including patient records and confidential research papers
that could have exposed the corruption and illegal activities within the hospital system67.

(¶84.) It is humbly submitted by the counsel that the Dr. Sahai’s research, if made public,
could have uncovered a nexus between the hospital authorities and the state health minister,
thus threatening their interests. The deliberate attempt to silence Dr. Sahai and suppress his
findings represents a direct violation of his fundamental right to freedom of speech and
expression.

(¶85.) This case underscores the extent to which individuals seeking to expose corruption and
abuse can face grave dangers when their rights to speak out and express critical views are
unlawfully suppressed.

(¶86.) The Ramesh Thapar v. Union of India68 case is highly relevant to the present matter,
as it deals with the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of Babiana. In the Ramesh Thapar case, the Supreme Court ruled that the
freedom of speech includes the right to express dissent and disseminate ideas, even if those
ideas are critical of the government. The Court emphasized that any restriction on this
fundamental right must be reasonable and justified by law. Similarly, in the case of Dr. Sahai,
his research sought to expose mismanagement, corruption, and illegal activities, including
human organ trafficking involving hospital authorities and state officials. However, instead
of protecting Dr. Sahai’s right to freedom of speech, the authorities attempted to
suppress his voice

66
Moot proposition.
67
Moot proposition.
68
Romesh Thappar v. The State Of Madras on 26 May, 1950 Equivalent citations: 1950 AIR 124, 1950 SCR
10
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

594, AIR 1950 SUPREME COURT 124 (India).

11
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

through violent means, including his murder and the destruction of evidence. This
suppression of Dr. Sahai’s research directly violates his fundamental right to freedom of
speech and expression, like the attempt to curtail Ramesh Thapar's expression in his case.
Thus, just as the Supreme Court in Ramesh Thapar emphasized the protection of free speech,
Dr. Sahai’s case reflects a grave infringement of this right, with the state and powerful
authorities unlawfully attempting to silence her and prevent the exposure of their misdeeds.

(¶87.) Again lending on the case of Shri. Dinesh Trivedi(M.P) and Ors v. Union of India
and Ors.69 The case dealt with restrictions on freedom of speech and emphasized that the
right to express dissent or criticism of the government is essential to a functioning democracy.
The present matter is similar, as Dr. Sahai was attempting to expose the wrongdoings of both
the hospital authority and the state health minister, which was met with violent suppression
and a denial of his right to free speech.

4.2 The Matter Involves The Violation Of Human Rights

(¶88.) It is respectfully submitted that the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the
Constitution (Articles 12 to 35) were inspired by the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution.
This section is rightly regarded as the Magna Carta of India, with the Magna Carta itself
being a foundational source of human rights principles.

(¶89.) The Fundamental Rights under the Indian Constitution align closely with the human
rights enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights70, 1976, and the
International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, 197671. Along with
convention on All discrimination against women72Therefore, any violation of Article 21 not
only contravenes domestic constitutional safeguards but also amounts to an infringement of
internationally recognized human rights. This principle was well established in the landmark
case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India73 and AK Gopalan v. State of Madras74,

69
Shri Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. & Ors v. Union Of India & Ors. on 20 March, 1997 Equivalent citations:
AIRONLINE 1997 SC 304 (India).
70
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights -a treaty that protects the civil and political rights of
people. It was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966. (India).
71
International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, 1976 All peoples have the right of self-
determination, including the right to determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and
cultural development.
72
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) is an
international agreement that aims to end discrimination against women and girls. It was adopted by the United
Nations General Assembly in 1979 and went into effect in 1981.
73
Supra Note 3.
74
Supra Note 2.

12
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21 to include the
right to live with dignity and due process.

(¶90.) In light of the above, it is humbly submitted that the present case must be examined
with due regard to these fundamental principles to ensure justice and the protection of
constitutional and human rights.

4.2.3 Right to Life and Personal Security (Article 6 of the ICCPR)

(¶91.) Dr. Sahai’s right to life was violated by the authorities in their failure to provide
adequate protection against the threats he faced and the eventual murder he suffered. The
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) guarantees that every
individual has the inherent right to life (Article 6)75 and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived
of life. Despite Dr. Sahai’s repeated requests for enhanced security due to the threats he
faced, his rights were disregarded, and the authorities’ failure to intervene directly led to his
death. This constitutes a direct violation of his right to life under international law.

4.2.4 Right to Freedom of Expression (Article 19 of the ICCPR)

(¶92.) Dr. Sahai’s freedom of speech was severely curtailed by the hospital authorities and
state actors who sought to silence his efforts to expose mismanagement, corruption, and
illegal activities such as human organ trafficking. Article 1976 of the ICCPR guarantees the
right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart
information. The deliberate suppression of Dr. Sahai’s research through murder and evidence
tampering violates this right, which is fundamental to the protection of democracy and
individual liberties.

4.2.5 Right to Fair Trial and Due Process (Article 14 of the ICCPR)
(¶93.) The denial of a fair and transparent investigation into Dr. Sahai’s death represents a
violation of his right to a fair trial under Article 1477 of the ICCPR, which guarantees that

75
Article 6 of the ICCPR states that the "… inherent right to life (…) shall be protected by law…", and that no
one can be arbitrarily deprived of his / her life.
76
Article 19 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone shall have the
right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and
ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any
other media of his choice. 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it
special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such
as are provided by law and are necessary:
77
Article 14 - 1. All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals.

1
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing. The premature conclusion of the
investigation, the tampering of evidence, and the suppression of key findings Babianate a
deliberate attempt to prevent justice from being served. A thorough and impartial
investigation is essential to ensure that all individuals are granted due process.

4.2.6 Right to Dignity (Article 1 of the ICCPR)

(¶94.) Dr. Sahai’s right to dignity was violated in two ways: firstly, by denying her justice
and failing to conduct a proper investigation into his murder; and secondly, by the authorities’
failure to protect her from physical and psychological harm despite his repeated requests.
Article 178 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) asserts that all individuals
are born free and equal in dignity and rights, which was grossly violated through the state’s
failure to protect Dr. Sahai’s dignity in life and death.

4.2.7 Right to a Safe Work Environment (Article 11 of the ICESCR)

(¶95.) The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) under
Article 11 guarantees the right to safe and healthy working conditions. Dr. Sahai’s repeated
requests for relief from night shifts and enhanced security measures at work were denied,
which subjected her to unnecessary risks, both physically and mentally. The lack of
protection at the workplace directly contributed to the harassment and eventual death he
suffered, thus violating his right to a safe work environment.

4.2.8 Right to Protection from Torture (Article 5 of the UDHR, Article 7 of the ICCPR)
(¶96.) Dr. Sahai’s situation involved not only harassment but also mental and physical abuse,
which could be established by visible scars and injuries. Article 5 of the UDHR prohibits
torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Article 7 of the ICCPR echoes this by
prohibiting torture or degrading treatment, which is especially relevant considering Dr.
Sahai’s repeated maltreatment and the trauma he endured due to the authorities’ neglect.

(¶97.) The present matter clearly involves violations of fundamental human rights under
international law, specifically under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW). Article 2 of the ECHR79, which guarantees the right to life, has been violated in

78
Article 1 All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and
conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
79
ARTICLE 2 Right to life 1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his
life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which

2
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

this case. Dr. Sahai repeatedly requested enhanced security and relief from night shifts due
to imminent threats to his life, yet the authorities ignored these requests. The deliberate
negligence in addressing his security concerns, followed by his murder, constitutes a direct
violation of his right to life.

(¶98.) Article 10 of the ECHR, which ensures freedom of expression, has been infringed
upon, as Dr. Sahai’s research aimed at exposing corruption, financial irregularities, and
human organ trafficking within the hospital and state health authorities was deliberately
suppressed. Instead of protecting his right to speak out, the authorities orchestrated an
organized attack to silence her permanently, which is a grave breach of international human
rights standards.

(¶99.) Furthermore, under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women (CEDAW), multiple rights have been violated. Article 11 of CEDAW,
which guarantees the right to work in a safe and harassment-free environment, was breached
when Dr. Sahai was forced to work under unsafe conditions despite repeated pleas for
security enhancements. The continuous denial of protective measures subjected her to
mental and physical harassment, ultimately leading to his death. Moreover, Article 6 of
CEDAW, which provides protection from exploitation, including sexual exploitation and
trafficking, has been violated, as the case involves organized human organ trafficking linked
to hospital authorities and state officials.

(¶100.) Thus, as fundamental rights are inherently tied to human rights, this case exemplifies
gross human rights violations under international law. The denial of Dr. Sahai’s right to life,
freedom of expression, workplace safety, and protection from exploitation reflects a
deliberate abuse of power by state authorities. Therefore, the petitioner humbly submits
that this matter necessitates immediate judicial intervention to ensure justice, uphold
constitutional and international human rights standards, and prevent future violations
of this nature.

4.3 There Is A Violation Of The Principle Of Natural Justice.

this penalty is provided by law. 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this
Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in defense of any
person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully
detained; (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

3
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

(¶101.) The present case reflects a grave violation of natural justice, as both the rule against
bias (Nemo Judex in Causa Sua)80 and the right to be heard (Audi Alteram Partem)81 were
disregarded. The hospital authority, having a vested interest, manipulated evidence and
influenced the investigation, making itself both the accused and the judge, violating Ranjit
Thakur v. Union of India82. Additionally, Dr. Sahai was denied a fair hearing, with crucial
evidence being destroyed and key witnesses silenced, contravening the principles laid down
in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India83 and State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei84. These
actions render the investigation legally flawed and necessitate immediate judicial
intervention.

(¶102.) In the landmark case of A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India85 the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India held that any person who has a vested interest in the outcome of a case cannot
be allowed to be a judge in their own cause. The Court emphasized that even an
administrative authority must adhere to the principles of natural justice and maintain
impartiality in decision-making. The ruling stated that justice must not only be done but also
appear to be done. Similarly, in the present matter, everything was under the control of the
hospital authority, demonstrating the involvement of high-ranking officials from both the
state administration and the hospital management.

(¶103.) Thus, It is humbly submitted by the Council of the petitioner that the matter involves
clear cut violation of the fundamental right and humanitarian rights as per the argument
advance and authority cited.

80
―Nemo judex in causa sua‖ is a Latin phrase that means "no one should be a judge in their own case". It's a
fundamental principle of natural justice and constitutionalism.
81
Audi alteram partem is a Latin phrase that means "listen to the other side" or "let the other side be heard". It's
a fundamental principle of justice that ensures a fair hearing for all parties involved in a dispute S.A. Khan v.
Haryana Government AIR1993SC1152.
82
Ranjit Thakur v. Union Of India And Ors on 15 October, 1987 Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 2386, 1988
SCR (1) 512, AIR 1987 SUPREME COURT 2386, 1987 (4) SCC 611, 1987 (3) IJR (SC) 658, 1987 (5) JT 93,
1988 SCC (L&S) 1 (India).
83
Supra Note 3.
84
State Of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & Ors on 7 February, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1269,
1967 SCR (2) 625, AIR 1967 SUPREME COURT 1269, 1967 2 SCJ 339, 1967 2 LABLJ 266, 1967 2 SCR 625,
15 FACLR 209, 33 CUTLT 583, 1967 2 SCWR 442 (India)
85
A. K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc v. Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1969 Equivalent citations: AIR 1970
SUPREME COURT 150 (India).

4
 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: BHARAT COLLEGE OF LAW

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited & arguments
advanced, may this Hon’ble Supreme Court of India be pleased to adjudge & declare that:

1. To issue a writ of Mandamus for

a. Constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or CBI

investigation.

b. Forensic audit of hospital finances.

c. Guidelines for whistleblower protection.

d. Compensation for Dr. Sahai’s family and prosecution of those

responsible for her death.
2. To hold the State Liable for his Act
3. To hold State Life Hospital accountable for his act
4. To provide adequate compensation of Dr. Sahai Family and Ensure the Justice
to be prevailed

AND/ OR

Pass any other order that it may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity & good
conscience.

All of which is most humbly prayed.

DATE: {Counsels for the Petitioner}

PLACE: Sd/--