Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug vs Union of India: Landmark Euthanasia Case Explained

Spread the love

ARUNA RAMACHANDRA SHANBAUG

UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2011 (4) Scc 454

Court: The Honourable Supreme Court

Date: 7^th March 2011

Bench: Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra

Table of Contents

Introduction

Every Human Creature has its own life with rights and privileges given and confirmed to each creature. These Humans are governed by an instrument of Law. Law enables an individual with lots and lots of rights to lead their respective lives without any intervention from others. It ensures that they are protected under the law. As we know, our Indian Constitution is the Parent Document or legislation of all enactments. Every individual has been bundled with rights to safeguard, protect and secure them. Article 21 guarantees the Right to Life in a dignified manner.

In this case, administering euthanasia to a person who is in a vegetative state was a major concern. Injecting active euthanasia is a crime worldwide. If passive euthanasia is administered to a patient who cannot give consent or doesn’t know the surrounding happenings can be lead to unjust and violative of her Right to live which guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution. This case deals with the constitutional validity of euthanasia.

Facts

Ms Aruna was a working nurse at Edward Memorial Hospital, Mumbai. On 27^th November 1973 she was attacked by a sweeper at the same hospital. He attacked Ms Aruna and tied her neck using a dog chain to resist her from attempting rape. He tried to rape her but she was menstruating he sodomized her. The next day, i.e., 28^th November 1973 Aruna lay on the floor with blood all over and everywhere in an unconscious state due to a lack of supply of oxygen to the brain which caused cortex in her brain system. She was admitted to the same hospital for treatment after Aruna’s parents and relatives refused to take care of her. She was in a vegetative state up to 36 years.

In 2009, a friend of Aruna filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, to end Aruna’s Life as she was in a permanent Vegetative State. She cannot move her limbs, hands or anything. She has been in a vegetative state for hardly 36 years. The petition filed before the Supreme Court seeks to end Aruna’s life, so that she could have a dignified death.

Issues

The major issue in this case was

Whether a friend or known person can file a petition to end one’s life?
Does the Right to Life include the Right to die, which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution?
Should euthanasia be permitted either active or passive?

Petitioner Argument

A petition was filed before the Supreme Court by the Journalist Ms Pinki, who called herself a friend of Aruna and filed a petition for the peaceful and dignified death of Aruna. Petitioner argued that the Indian Constitution under Article 21 guarantees the Right to live, including the Right to die Dignity. Ms Aruna couldn’t recover from a Vegetative state for about 36 years and No improvement was shown as a sign or symptom of recovery. The petitioner suggested ending her life in a peaceful and dignified manner by giving Active euthanasia, as a result of this permanent Vegetative state, without any scope or improvement and can’t chew her food, bedridden for 36 Years. Importantly, Aruna couldn’t know about the surrounding happenings, and could not express her emotions.

Respondent Argument

The respondent argued against the idea or thoughts of the petitioner stating that the Hospital has been taking care of Aruna for 36 years with basic requirements and amenities without any hesitation and any payment for her. They had a close bond towards Aruna and the respondent suggested not to give any euthanasia to her because there were some more days for her natural death. Till her natural death, the hospital is ready and willing to care for Aruna without hesitation. They claimed that everyone has the right to live and no one can plunder or take away that right. If euthanasia was initiated it would become unjust and a violation of her Right.

Judgment

The court differentiated the difference between Active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is a deliberate end of one’s life by administering lethal substances whereas Passive euthanasia is not such sort of deliberate, but withdrawing the life-supporting system. Injecting lethal substances is illegal unless legislation specifies to do so and it is considered as a crime worldwide. The apex Court laid down the guidelines for administering Passive euthanasia. This Passive euthanasia can be given in “rarest of Rare” Cases. The High Court Under Article 226 of the Indian constitution, may constitute a Bench comprising of Chief Justice to decide the withdrawal of life supporting system. But before deciding, they should have formed a committee of three experienced and reputed doctors to advise and suggestions. They have thorough examinations of the patient about their condition and the Court should issue a notice to parents or relatives of the concerned patient before administering passive euthanasia.

Analysis

In the previous case of Gian Kaur, the Supreme Court rejected administering passive euthanasia to the patient as it is violative of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Whereas in the Aruna Shanbaug case, the Court permitted to use of Passive euthanasia to end one’s life and interpreted it in a way that the Right to Life includes the Right to die with dignity.

References

Bibliography