 With the due permission of this court

 This is the participant No.FM12 representing as the council for the Respondents in the
case of Smt.Kanthimathi and Dr.Margret Alexi vs Union of india
 This is the participant No.FM12 representing as the council for the Respondents in the
case of Dr.Margret Alexi vs State of Kerala
 This is the participant No.FM12 representing as the council for the Respondents in
the case of Love and Care for Children, Kerala(LACCK)
 The counsel begs the permission to address the bench as “your Lordsship”.
 Much obliged

The speech on behalf of the respondents

1. The counsel begs the permission of this hon’ble court to present the 1st issue:
. THAT THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY SMT.KANTHIMATHI AND
DR.MARGRET ALEXI IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE
HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA:
It is submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable primarily on three
grounds: first, there is no locus standi for filing the writ petition; second, the
petitioner has alternate remedies available; third, no fundamental right has been
violated.
1.1. In order to file a writ petition in the High Court under article 226, there must be a
locus statndi. In M.S Jayaraj vs Commissioner of exercise, Kerala and ors- did
not consider since no locus statndi . Chandra Deo Singh vs Prokash Chandra
Bose held same.
In the present case, the petition is filed by Kanthimathi and Dr.Alexi who are not
the aggrieved party and therefore they do not have the locus standi in order to file
the petition. Also, Ms.R is the aggrieved party and she has not authorised the
above petitioners to file the petition on her behalf. The petitioner No.2 Margret
Alexi has been booked U/S 107 of the IPC and also for violating section 3 of MTP
Act. So the petitioner’s actual intensions are questionable.

1.2.Alternate remedies are available the aggrieved party: Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India has held
that Petitioner must exhaust its alternative remedy before approaching the High
 Court. Though the section 3 subsection 2 takes away the right of a woman to
terminate her pregnancy after 20 weeks, there is a remedy available under section
5 of the MTP Act. Thus the petitioners have alternate remedy available to them.
1.3.The sections 3 subsection 2 lays down reasonable restrictions to the right of a
woman under article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is clearly mentioned in the
Indian Constitution that the Fundamental Rights under Article 21 is subjected to
reasonable restrictions by a procedure established by law
2. THAT THE MEDICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY ACT, 1971 IS
CONSTITUTIONAL:
2.1. The Act allows only a Registered medical Practisioner to conduct abortion in
government recognised hospital to prevent induced abortion.- regarding good
faith.- whom and where.
2.2. The MTP Act does not allow abortion if the foetus is over 20 weeks old, and
exceptions to this rule include grave danger to the mother or the baby. MTP Act
has brought this clause in order to protect the pregnant women from unsafe
abortions. The Act ensures that the medical termination of pregnancy does not
cause any harm to the pregnant mother Therefore the MTP Act, 1971 lays
reasonable restrictions on a woman’s right to privacy in a good intention to protect
her health. –to prevent induced abortion- Act provides viable period for safe
2.3.The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act recognizes the importance of
providing safe, affordable, accessible and acceptable abortion services to women
who need to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and legalizes abortion on
therapeutic, eugenic, humanitarian or social grounds.
Nand Kishore Sharma And Ors. vs Union Of India And Anr. The object of the
Act being to save the life of the pregnant woman and thus in consonance with the
article 21 than in conflict.
3. THAT THE MEDICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY CANNOT BE
ALLOWED BEYOND THE STATUTORY BOUNDS INSCRIBED IN
SECTION 3 SUB SECTION 2 CLAUSE (a) & (b) OF MTP ACT, 1971
3.1.The MTP Act provides a statutory bounds of 20 weeks for abortion unless it cause
a threat to the mother or the child. Thus this act ensures a safe period for abortion.
Maintains the physical and mental health of the mother.
3.2.In Rekha Rani vs State of Haryana and Another, the petitioner with 26-27 had
approached the court and the court turned down the petition since the abortion at
 that point was hazardous to the pregnant woman. Thus showing that the Act
Actually protects the pregnant women. in Manikuttan Vs M.N. Baby stated that
Foetus is life in another woman thus stating that an unborn child has right to life.
4. THAT THE SECTION 312 OF THE IPC PENALISING CAUSING
MISCARRIAGE IS CONSTITUTIONAL:
4.1.These provisions of IPC tries to protect the right of an unborn child. In
HEMRAJ AND ANOTHER VS RAMDHAN AND ORS, the car accident
resulted in injuries to the foetus and resulted in the death of the foetus of the
claimant and the claimant was entitiled for compensation for the dead foetus.
4.2.In Bhawaribai v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd, the High court of Karnataka
considered the death of foetus in womb at par with death of a minor. This
evidently shows that the High Court has recognised the right of an unborn child
and even goes to the extent of considering the right of an unborn child as that of a
minor.
4.3.The law of property and the hindu succession Act recognises the right of an
unborn child. An unborn child could claim property rights. From these judgements
it is evidently seen that the objective of 312-318 of the provisions of IPC is to
protect the rights of an unborn child.

5. THAT THE PETITION FILED BY DR.MARGRET ALEXI TO QUASH

THE FIR IS NOT MAINTAINABLE:
5.1. Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 has laid down the provision for
the quashing of the FIR to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice. In Ch.Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana – court
dismissed the petition-once FIR is registered-an obligation on the part of the
investigating officer to investigate-the challan produced shows whether an offence
is committed or not-the FIR cause no loss to petitioner. In D.Rajeswar Rao v.
government of A.P and another-no reason to prove- FIR was unreasonably filed
against the petitioner. Acc to MTP- registered pract-on good faith-to prevent
danger to mother or child-Alexi no good faith-tranquil hospital run by Ashram-
Alexi is a believer-on direction of Wixi, the head-did not follow the procedure of
MTP-did not enquire pregnancy-no written consent from patient-
6. THAT THE PETITION FILED BY LOVE AND CARE FOR CHILDREN
(LACC), KERALA IS NOT MAINTAINABLE:
 No locus statndi- A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the
proccedings of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi-genuine
reason-here private motive- In Dhattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs State of
Maharashtra and ors- locus statndi is mandatory- LACCK- private motive
attract more children-popularity-more income-The law looks into the physical and
mental health of the mother than that of the unborn. Thus the law does not
consider the right of an unborn child. So there is no violation of any Fundamental
Rights in the given petition-
6.1.The right of unborn –not mentioned in the indian constitution-the SC of US in a
landmark case ruled –no right of unborn- There are crimes committed against
unborn child that are not recognized as such and hence make punishment
impossible. For example, threatening to kill and even grievous hurt to a foetus are
not an offence. Therefore it is evident that an unborn child has no legal rights.
7. MEDICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY ACT, 1971 DOES NOT
VIOLATE THE RIGHT OF AN UNBORN:

7.1.The Fundamental aim of the MTP Act is to protect the physical and mental health
of the pregnant women. The right to life is a very broad concept and has been
recognised under the Indian Constitution- The International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights1 declares that 'every human being' has the inherent right to life,-
does not consider unborn- The international Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights 1966, Declares that ‘Every human being has the inherent right to life.-
called human only after birth and not before.-unborn no rights-
The Constitution of India is the supreme law of India. It lays down the framework
defining fundamental political principles, establishes the structure, procedures,
powers and duties of government institutions and sets out fundamental rights,
directive principles and the duties of citizens- unborn not considered.- Since an
unborn child has no legal rights, the provisions of the Medical Termination of
Pregnancy cannot be told to violate the rights of an unborn child

1
Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be
arbitrarily deprived of his life.