MOOT COURT MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

MOOT PROPOSITION 3 (ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT)

Before

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL

APPEAL NO. 2817/2023

IN THE MATTER OF

JYOTI APPELLANT

VERSUS

RAMESH & ORS. RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO

THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

-MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THEAPPELLANT-

 MOOT COURT MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

-TABLE OF CONTENTS-

-TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................

-TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................
-INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..................................................................................................
-STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.....................................................................................
-STATEMENT OF FACTS.....................................................................................................
-ISSUES RAISED.....................................................................................................................
-SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS..........................................................................................
-ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...............................................................................................

1. Whether the classification made under Section 3 of the

Medical Termination Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act) is
unreasonable and violates Article 14?
2. Whether denial to a DNA test to establish the parentage of the
fetus
to uphold the dignity of a woman wherein, she is accused of
infidelity, violates Article 21 of the Constitution?
-PRAYER ..................................................................................................................................
 MOOT COURT MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

-TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS-

AIR ALL INDIA REPORT

ANR. ANOTHER

ED. EDITION

GOVT. GOVERNMENT

HON’BLE HONORABLE

ART. ARTICLE

ANR. ANOTHER

ORS. OTHERS

P. PAGE

NCT NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

SC SUPREME COURT

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

SCR SUPREME COURT REPORTS

MTP MEDICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY

UOI UNION OF INDIA

 MOOT COURT MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

& AND

Bom BOMBAY

HC HIGH COURT
 MOOT COURT MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

-INDEX of AUTHORITIES-

INDIAN CASES:
S.NO CASES PAGE NO.

1. Suchita Srivastava Vs Chandigarh Administration

2. Roe Vs Wade
3. K S Puttaswamy Vs Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
Common Cause Vs Union of India (2018) 5 SCC 1
5. Kesavananda Bharati Vs State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC
225 Francis Coralie Vs Administrator, Union Territory of
Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608
6. High Court on its Own Motion Vs State of Maharashtra,
2017 Cri LJ 218 (Bom HC); (2016) SCC OnLine Bom 8426
7. BK Parthasarathi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2000
AP 156, at 159
8. Manu Sharma Vs State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2010
SUPREME COURT 2532
 MOOT COURT MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

CONVENTIONS:

S.NO CONVENTIONS
1. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women.

BOOKS AND PAPERS:

S.NO BOOKS AND PAPERS

The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 & 3 cl. 2(b), Act No. 34,
1. Act
of Parliament 197 (India).

S.NO ONLINE DATABASES

1.

SCC Online
 MOOT COURT MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

2.

Hein Online

3.

LexisNexis

4.

Manupatra
 MOOT COURT MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

-STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION-

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has the required jurisdiction for adjudicating the present matter
under
Article 136 of the Indian Constitution.

14. Equality before law conferred by this part

(1) Article 14 of the Constitution of India states that all people within India are equal
before the law and have equal protection under the law. This means that no one can be
treated differently from others based on their rank, position, or condition.

(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 warranto
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.

Article 21 which grants right to life & sets precedents for infringing & violating laws.

Thereby, the Appellant submits this memorial which puts forward the facts and laws on
which the claims are framed.
 MOOT COURT MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

-STATEMENT OF FACTS-
1. Since 2015, Jyoti and Ramesh have been working together in an MNC in New Delhi, as
software
Engineers.
2. Gradually they developed friendship and in September, 2020, they moved-in together in a
rented apartment in the area of Rohini. Since then they were in a live-in relationship. In April,
2022, for a few months Jyoti was sent to Bangalore for a work assignment by the company.
Jyoti was assisting Mohit the Senior Software Engineer in Bangalore Branch of the company
and they both were working for long hours together. As the project had strict deadlines, Jyoti
had to work hard and Ramesh felt ignored and blamed Jyoti for having fun with Mohit While
he was left alone in Delhi. After Jyoti came back to Delhi in August, 2022, Ramesh became
suspicious about Jyoti for having an affair with Mohit in Bangalore and also questioned her
as to why she was still in contact with him, when the project was complete. Gradually Jyoti
convinced him that she had no other man in her life and also disconnected herself from
Mohit Completely. In the first week of October, 2023 Jyoti found out that she was pregnant
and she insisted upon getting married, to which Ramesh initially refused as he wanted to
focus on his career but Jyoti convinced him hard and he agreed. When Jyoti’sparents went
to meet Ramesh’s parent, they purported that Jyotihad multiple illicit relationships and as
they were not sure that Ramesh was the father of the expected child, they did not want him
to get married to Jyoti. Jyoti said that if they had doubts Ramesh could take a paternity DNA
test but he clearly refused to do that and said he cannot be forced for the same and was
sure that the child belongs to Mohit or someone else but him. Jyoti was devastated; she lost
all the hopes and decided to terminate the pregnancy, which by then was of the term of 23
weeks. The doctor refused to abort the baby as per Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act,
3. 1971 (MTP Act). Against this Jyoti approached the court to grant equal rights to access
abortion upto 24 weeks of gestation to all women, whether married or not and to order
Paternity test of Ramesh to uphold her dignity along with the compensation for all the agony
and trauma.
4. The trial court denied Jyoti the right to terminate her pregnancy. Jyoti did not want to carry
the pregnancy because of the social stigma, family pressure, financial constraints, and
above all the betrayal from Ramesh. Jyoti’s request to order Ramesh to go through the DNA
test for paternity was also rejected on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Trial Court held
that the case involves consensual sex between two consenting adults and Jyoti had given
consent for sexual intercourse and it was only after pregnancy that Ramesh agreed to get
married but the sexual intercourse at any stage before that was consensual without any
conclusive proof of promise to get married from the side of Ramesh. The Trial court called
the case ‘a classic case of a love affair gone bitter’ and said DNA test cannot be ordered as
a ‘matter of course’ merely because they are permissible by the court. In appeal the High
Court, clearly reinstated that DNA test is to be ordered only in deserving cases and forcing
someone infringes his right to privacy. Hon'ble High court said, “The appellant seems to be
confusing, she is here with conflicting pleas. She cannot seek permission to terminate her
pregnancy and for the DNA test for Paternity at once. Paternity tests are to create affiliation
for the child and his rights; it cannot be used as a means to build pressure or extract money
or for vengeance. Here it is not for the child but to prove a point. Paternity test would fetch
no fruit if the mother is simultaneously seeking the abortion.
5. The appellant clearly has no consideration for the child and his paternal affiliation but is more
about to
prove the allegation on her character to be wrong, which in no possible scenario gives rise to
a ground to order a Paternity test.”
6. Further it was held that she did not have the right to terminate her pregnancy. The court clearly
enlisted
 MOOT COURT MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

that only certain categories of women can terminate their pregnancy beyond 20 weeks and
up to 24 weeks and such categories included married women whose marital status changed
because of divorced or death of the husband during the pregnancy. The court clearly said
that the unmarried women, whose pregnancy arose out of a consensual relationship, was
not covered. And hence Jyoticannot get her pregnancy terminated.
7. The court explicitly said that giving an option to terminate the pregnancy must in all the
cases be the exception and not the rule. Abortions are “ethically not advisable”. A woman
cannot demand an abortion because the fetus is not the “property of the woman”. With a 24
week pregnancy, termination is not as casual as the mother wants it to be, it is a feticide, a
killing of a fetus which cannot be allowed just under family pressure. Ms. Jyoti is an
independent woman who ignored the social norms and moved in with her lover and decided
to get pregnant, just because the affairs did not turn out to be as planned, she cannot
terminate the pregnancy and kill the fetus, which is a living being, without any of his fault. If
such terminations are allowed, we in turn increase female- feticides also. The court upholds
the decision that this pregnancy should not be terminated. For medical practitioners, denying
abortion has no consequence, but if they provide abortion and it does not fall under the
parameters of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, then there is a criminal
liability.
8. Against the High court judgment the appellant has filed the present appeal stating that Article
21 of the Constitution guarantees right to life with dignity and the right of every woman to
make reproductive choices without undue interference from the State is the core of the idea
of human dignity. Denial to DNA test and deprivation from abortion choice along with the
denial of access to reproductive healthcare or emotional and physical wellbeing injures the
dignity of women.
9. It is also pleaded that the legislature (Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971) intends
to distinguish between married and unmarried women and hence is against the constitutional
mandate of equality. An interpretation given by the Hon’ble HC is limited only to married
women, would render the law discriminatory towards unmarried women and violate their
fundamental right to equality.
10. On this ground the appellant has sought permission to terminate her pregnancy.
 MOOT COURT MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

-ISSUES RAISED-
-ISSUE 1-

Whether the classification made under Section 3 of the Medical

Termination
of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act) is unreasonable and violates Article
14?

-ISSUE 2-

Whether denial to a DNA test to establish the parentage of the

fetus to uphold the dignity of a woman wherein, she is accused of
infidelity, violates of Article 21 of the Constitution?
 MOOT COURT MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

-SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS-

1. Whether the classification made under Section 3 of the Medical Termination of

Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act) is unreasonable and violates Article 14?

The classification made under this section 3 of the Medical Termination of

Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act) is unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory that
violates the Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The classification based on the
period of pregnancy imposes the arbitrary burden or restrictions on the women who
affect the women who do not have the access to the basic medical facilities in their
own place. It imposes a burden which delays the access to the basic healthcare
facilities to those women. In the case of Suchita Srivastava Vs Chandigarh
Administration, the supreme court held that the women’s right to make reproductive
decisions is indeed integral to her own personal liberty under the Article 21
prescribed in the Indian constitution1. In the recent judgment of x vs. Principal
secretary health and family welfare department, the court held that rigid gestational
limits disproportionately harm women and their reproductive rights must be
prioritized. 2

2. Whether denial to a DNA test to establish the parentage of the fetus to

uphold the dignity of a woman wherein, she is accused of infidelity,
violates Article 21 of the Constitution?

The perspective of denying a DNA Test to protect a women’s dignity and also
for ensuring it for the need of the fair trial. As there is need for the right way to
determine and protect the rights of the innocent individuals but their denial of
the test would deprive the appellant of their right and the dignity of the women
is protected under the Article 21 of the Indian Constitution but it is not
absolute. In the case of Nandlal wasudeo Badwaik Vs Lata Nandlal Badwaik,
the Supreme court has held that in the cases where there is dispute regarding
the paternity the DNA test can be taken into consideration as the most
important and significant aspect of the evidence to reveal the
1
Suchita Srivastava Vs Chandigarh Administration

2
X Vs Principal secretaryhealth and family welfare department
 MOOT COURT MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

truth3. The dignity of the women is very much relevant to the case of this but
only when there is a need for this dire situational circumstance could it be the
best source that can be relied upon without the second doubt. One of the
cases Sharda Vs Dharmpal the Supreme Court has held that compelling
medical tests involving DNA tests could be permitted if they are necessary for
just and fair treatment and do not amount to coercion.4
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE CLASSIFICATION MADE UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE MEDICAL

TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY ACT, 1971 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE
MTP ACT IS UNREASONABLE AND VIOLATES ARTICLE 14?
(1) The counsel for the appellant sincerely and most humbly contends that the
classification of married and unmarried women under Section 3(2)(b)5 The MTP Act is
arbitrary and discriminatory, and it violates the fundamental right to equality guaranteed
by Article 146 of the Indian Constitution. This problem has been broken into additional
limbs to present the arguments comprehensively: The right to bodily integrity and
autonomy is a universal right safeguarded under Article 217 of the Indian Constitution
and Global Treaties[A]. Interpreting Rule 3B8 of the MTP Rules, 2003 purposefully
aligns it with the constitutional goals and intention [B]. Unjust denial of abortion based
on marital status is arbitrary, and thus the High Court's Judgment ought to be struck
down as it violates the Right to equality9 of the unmarried women [C].
A. THE RIGHT TO BODILY INTEGRITY AND AUTONOMY IS SAFEGUARDED UNDER
THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION AND VARIOUS GLOBAL TREATIES.

1. The Indian Constitution

(2) Women have the freedom to make their own sexual health decisions10, including whether

3
Nandlal wasudeo Badwaik Vs Lata Nandlal Badwaik
4
Sharda Vs Dharmpal
5
The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 & 3 cl.2(b), Act No. 34, Act of parliament 1971 (India).
6
INDIA CONST. art. 14.
7
INDIA CONST. art. 21.
8
Rule 3B of the MTP Rules, 2003.
9
INDIA CONST. art. 14.
10
X v. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
 MOOT COURT MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

or not to procreate, without being coerced by others. Pregnant women have the
right to bodily and decisional autonomy, as outlined in the fundamental rights to
privacy11 and dignity under Article 2112 of the Constitution.
(3) The Right to Privacy includes the right to bodily integrity13, as declared by the
Hon'ble Court. The right to self-determination is a key component of our
Constitution's Right to Dignity14. In suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh
Administration15, supreme court believed that a woman's constitutional right to
make reproductive decisions was intimately related to her right to an abortion
under the MTP Act, 1971. Stated differently, the woman alone has the power to
make the final decision about her pregnancy.

(4) Unwanted pregnancy can negatively impact women's education, mental health,
and employment opportunities. A woman's decision to get an abortion is not
simple. Women make well-considered decisions, taking into account variables
such as financial constraints. Forcing despairing women to continue their
pregnancy against their will causes emotional anguish and negatively impacts their
life path16. This is an obvious breach of her physical integrity.

(5) In Roe v. Wade17, it was stated that the State can intervene with women's rights
to promote its own interests, such as the health of the woman seeking to terminate
her pregnancy. Women generally have this privilege without hindrance from the
state or other authorities.18

A.2 The Global Treaties

(6) India has ratified various international treaties and accords. Article 6 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires member states to
ensure legal and effective abortion access for women19. According to Article 12 of
the International Covenant on

11
K S Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.
12
INDIA CONST. art. 21.
13
Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) 5 SCC 1
14
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225; Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory
of
Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608.
15
(2009) 9 SCC 1
16
High Court on its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra, 2017 Cri LJ 218 (Bom HC); (2016) SCC OnLine Bom 8426
17
410 U.S. 113 (1973)
18
BK Parthasarathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2000 AP 156, at 159.
19
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36 (2018) on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and
 MOOT COURT MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the right to the maximum possible health
includes sexual and reproductive health. The CEDAW20 aims to eliminate
discrimination against women in family planning, pregnancy, and related areas.

(7) The Right to Bodily Integrity and Autonomy is a worldwide recognized and
legally protected right, as evidenced by precedents and treaties. Arbitrary
discrimination between married and unmarried women threatens the appellant's
rights to safe and legal abortion.
B. INTERPRETING RULE 3B OF THE MTP RULES, 2003 PURPOSEFULLY ALIGNS
IT WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL GOALS AND INTENTION.
(8) According to Rule 3B (c) of the MTP Rules, only pregnant women whose marital
status has changed owing to divorce or death of their husband are eligible for abortion
up to 24 weeks of pregnancy. The High Court ruled that the petitioner cannot terminate
her pregnancy using medical
means.

(9) In X v. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of
NCT of Delhi & Anr21, the Hon'ble Supreme Court construed Rule 3B to fulfill India's
international responsibilities while also serving the constitutional purpose. The Court
cautioned against narrowly interpreting a provision that contradicts constitutional
principles, as this would render the statute invalid.22

(10) In Badshah v. Urmila Badsha, the court emphasized the importance of adapting
the statute to new needs. The law regulates human conduct and interactions.
(11) In view of the aforementioned logic, Rule 3B should be read to encompass
unmarried women. All women have the right to reproductive choice, regardless of
marital status. Denying this freedom to unmarried women violates their fundamental
right to equality.

C. THE HIGH COURT’S JUDGMENT DENYING ABORTION BASED ON MARITAL

Political Rights, on the right to life, CCPR/C/GC/36 (30 October 2018).

20
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
21
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1321.
22
JUSTICE G.P SINGH, G.P. SINGH: PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, (LEXISNEXIS,2016),at
page 48; CIT v. S. Teja Singh, AIR 1959 SC 352; M. Pentiah v. Veeramallappa Muddal, 1961 (2) SCR 295;
Tinsukia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam, (1989) 3 SCC 709; K.P. Varghese v. ITO, (1981) 4 SCC
173; M.L. Kamra v. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, New India Assurance Co. Ltd, 1992 SCR (1) 220.
 MOOT COURT MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

STATUS VIOLATES THE RIGHT TO EQUALITY OF THE UNMARRIED WOMAN.

(12) The right to equality applies to all facets of life, including reproductive rights. It is argued
that categorizing women as married or unmarried ignores the particular issues they face.

(13) The High Court's verdict unfairly classified women depending on their marital status. Such
an interpretation of Rule 3B of the MTP Rules would result in difficult for unmarried women to
access safe abortions, even if they are in the same circumstances as a married woman.

(14) The High Court incorrectly ruled that the appellant violated social standards by moving
in with her lover and becoming pregnant voluntarily. Consensual intercourse does not
compromise a woman's bodily sovereignty. Additionally, live-in relationships were legalized
in S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal23. In Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal24. The
Court recognized that familial connections might take several forms, including queer,
domestic, and unmarried. Denying the MTP to unmarried women violates their right to
equality as it lacks a reasonable foundation.

(15) India's laws have historically prioritized equality for both married and unmarried
women. The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 defines a daughter, whether married or
unmarried, as a coparcener.25 Similarly, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act allows
any female, married or unmarried, to adopt a child26. Thus, unmarried women have the
same status as married women. The Court should construe Section 3 of the MTP Act to
ensure that women are not discriminated against based on marital status. This aligns with
the MTP Act's goal of ensuring legal and safe abortion access for all women.

(16) In XYZ v. State of Maharashtra27, an unmarried 18-year-old lady was allowed to get an
abortion in the 26th week of her pregnancy due to financial considerations. In Siddhi
Vishwanath Shelar v. State of Maharashtra,28 an unwed mother's abortion was permitted if
continuing the pregnancy would harm her health. The appellant in this case claims they lack
sufficient financial resources to raise the child. The Court must allow the appellant to have
an abortion.

23
(2010) 5 SCC 600
24
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1088
25
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 & 6, Act No. 30, Act of Parliament 1956(India).
26
The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, &8, Act of Parliament 1956 (India).
27
Judgement dated 6 October 2021 in WP(L) 21977 of 2021 (Bombay High Court).
 MOOT COURT MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT
(17) The appellant requests that the Apex Court reject the High Court's decision and grant
her access to abortion due to threats to her mental and physical health, as well as a lack of
financial resources for child rearing. The Supreme Court should rule that all women,
regardless of marriage status, have the right to reproductive and bodily autonomy. This will
ensure Rule 3B of the MTP Rule is constitutional and upholds the appellant's entitlement to
equality and dignity.
2. WHETHER DENIAL OF A DNA TEST TO ESTABLISH THE PARENTAGE
OF THE FETUS TO UPHOLD THE DIGNITY OF A WOMAN, WHEREIN SHE
IS ACCUSED OF INFIDELITY, VIOLATES ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN

CONSTITUTION?
(18)The refusal of a DNA test to determine the parentage of a fetus when a woman
is accused of infidelity violates her right to a dignified existence under Article 21 of
the Indian Constitution. To live a dignified life, individuals should be given the
opportunity to eliminate any accusations against them [A]. Second, DNA testing is
the most reliable way to prove innocence when suspected of infidelity [B].
A. EVERY PERSON MUST BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO REMOVE
THE ACCUSATION AGAINST HIMSELF/ HERSELF SO THAT HE/SHE CAN
LIVE A DIGNIFIED LIFE.
(19) Our legal system follows the principle of audi alteram partem and innocence unless
proven guilty. Justice requires a fair trial for the accused.29

(20) The appellant's reputation, character, and dignity are negatively impacted by
the denial of a DNA test, which adds to the assumption of infidelity. Denial creates
an assumption of guilt without evidence.

(21) Allowing this test can help the appellant clear her name and reputation,
preserving her social position. Allowing such a criteria aligns with natural justice
principles and ensures fair judicial proceedings.

(22)Furthermore, such a test will not hurt the respondent. Denying this test, despite
its ability to clear up misunderstandings about the appellant's faithfulness, will limit
the appellant's ability to defend herself against false accusations and violate her
right to a dignified life. This infringes the appellant's rights to due process and
access to justice.

(23) There is a lot of shame attached to an unmarried pregnant woman. If a

woman is suspected of infidelity, it can lead to a difficult life that violates her dignity
under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
29
Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 2532.
B. DNA TEST IS THE MOST ACCURATE METHOD OF PROVING THE INNOCENCE WHEN ONE IS
ACCUSED OF INFIDELITY.

(24) The DNA test is an excellent method for resolving the disagreement. The Allahabad High
Court held in Smt. Neelam v. Ram Asrey30, that a DNA test is the most reliable and
scientifically accurate way to confirm a wife's infidelity. Additionally, the wife can use a DNA
test to prove her innocence. According to the court's words.

(25) "This should be simultaneously taken as the most authentic, rightful and correct means
also with the wife, for her to rebut the assertions made by the respondent-husband, and to
establish that she had not been unfaithful, adulterous or disloyal."

(26) In Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy,31 The Apex Court ruled that DNA testing is the most
effective way to prove a wife's faithfulness. "Truth must triumph" is the hallmark of justice.

(27) The Court's rulings in Bhabani Prasad Jena32 and Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik33
demonstrate its authority to order DNA tests to determine the accuracy of charges.

(28) The ruling in Sharda v. Dharmpal34 indicates that requiring a DNA test does not violate a
person's personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The respondent's privacy must be
balanced with the appellant's right to access justice.

(29) In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully contended that the appellant has shown a prima
facie case for the Court to order a DNA test of the respondent. With the use of DNA testing, the
appellant will be able to clear her name of false claims of infidelity, which are vexatious and
manufactured solely to undermine her dignity.

(30) We respectfully request that the appellant be given the opportunity to clear her name of
infidelity. Accusations can lead to a difficult and disrespectful life, causing her to be looked
down upon in society.

30
Judgement dated 21 October, 2020.
31
AIR 2015 SC 418
32
Judgement dated 26 October, 2021.
33
AIR 2014 SC 932
34
(2003) 4 SCC 493
The Court must order the respondent to undertake a paternity DNA test to determine the accuracy
of the appellant's accusations and provide justice.
 -PRAYER-

Wherefore in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. Declare that the classification under Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy
Act, 1971, which discriminates against unmarried women, is arbitrary, unreasonable,
and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

2. Allow the Appellant to terminate her pregnancy, recognizing her reproductive autonomy
and the right to make choices concerning her body and dignity.

3. Direct the Respondent to undergo a DNA test to establish the paternity of the fetus,
balancing the Appellant's right to dignity and reputation with the Respondent’s right to
privacy.

And pass any other order that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interests of
justice, equity and good conscience. All of which is respectfully submitted,

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT