AN ANALYSIS OF THE LANDMARK JUDGMENT ON EUTHANASIA: COMMON CAUSE (A REGISTERED SOCIETY) VS. UNION OF INDIA, 2023
DHANUSHREE.N, GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, CHENGALPATTU
CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- BACKGROUND
- FACTS OF THE CASE
- KEY ISSUES
- CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER
- CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT
- OVERVIEW OF COMMON CAUSE VS. UNION OF INDIA 2018
- COURT’S DECISION
- IMPLICATIONS
- CRITICISMS AND CONTROVERSIES SURROUNDING THE CASE
- REFERENCES
INTRODUCTION
The Common Cause vs. Union of India case was a significant legal milestone that addressed the fundamental right to die with dignity and the implications of advance directives in India. In a ground-breaking legal battle that has captivated the nation, the Common Cause vs. Union of India case is set to redefine the boundaries of euthanasia laws in 2023. This landmark case has sparked intense debate and garnered widespread attention, as it delves into the ethical, moral, and legal aspects of end-of-life decisions.
At the heart of the dispute lies the question of whether individuals should have the right to choose when and how they die, particularly in cases of extreme suffering or terminal illness. While a group contends that euthanasia provides a compassionate option for those facing unbearable pain, opponents raise concerns about potential abuses and the sanctity of life. The court’s decision shapes how society views the right to die with dignity, and potentially pave the way for more comprehensive legislation on end-of-life choices.
Stay tuned as we delve deeper into the Common Cause vs. Union of India case, examining the legal arguments and the potential impact on euthanasia laws in the near future. The case had far-reaching implications and has been analyzed to understand its impact on euthanasia laws and the right to life with dignity. Here is an analysis of the case and its implications.
KEYWORDS: Active euthanasia; passive euthanasia; Advanced Medical Directory; right to die with dignity, Article 21
BACKGROUND
The debate surrounding euthanasia, or the deliberate ending of a person’s life to relieve suffering, is not a new phenomenon. It has been a topic of discussion and controversy for many years, drawing attention from various stakeholders, including medical professionals, religious groups, and legal experts.
In the case of P. Rathinam vs. Union Of India & another, a controversy regarding attempt to suicide or abetment of suicide aroused and the constitutional validity of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code was challenged. The argument was based on that the section violates article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution in which the Supreme Court’s two judge bench held section 309 as unconstitutional. But not very long, the decision in Rathinam’s case was overruled by a constitution bench of the Supreme Court as the section did not involve any positive or overt act, rather it was the negative aspect of the right in the case of Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab.
The Supreme Court of India has played a crucial role in shaping the legal framework for euthanasia through its landmark judgments. In 2011, in the case of Aruna Shanbaug vs. Union of India, the court recognized the concept of “passive euthanasia” and established guidelines for its implementation. Passive euthanasia refers to the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining medical treatment with the intention of allowing a patient to die naturally. The court ruled that in certain circumstances, such as cases of irreversible coma or terminal illness, where there is no hope of recovery, the withdrawal of life support can be considered permissible. However, it emphasized the need for strict safeguards and the requirement of obtaining approval from a designated medical board before implementing passive euthanasia.
While the Aruna Shanbaug case provided some clarity on passive euthanasia, it did not address the issue of active euthanasia, where medical intervention is provided to actively end a person’s life. This distinction between passive and active euthanasia remains a contentious issue and forms a crucial aspect of the Common Cause vs. Union of India The case was initiated by Common Cause, a registered society, to seek a declaration that the right to die with dignity was a part of the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. It sought directions to the State to adopt appropriate procedures to allow terminally ill individuals to execute Advance Medical Directives or living wills.
FACTS OF THE CASE
A registered society named Common Cause challenged the existing legal framework on euthanasia in India and advocate for the legalization of both passive and active euthanasia. Earlier the registered society approached the ministries of Health and Family Welfare, Company Affairs and as well as the State Governments in the year 2002 which was a failure. Later the society had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2005 via Article 32 seeking to declare the right to die with dignity as a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In 2014 a three-judge bench referred the case to a larger bench for adjudication. On the 9th of March, 2018 the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered its verdict in which it declared the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right and recognized the right to execute Advanced Medical Directory as an assertion of right to bodily integrity. In July, 2019 the Indian Society for Critical Care approached the Supreme Court through a miscellaneous petition seeking to modify the guidelines regarding Advanced Medical Directory issued by the Supreme Court itself in its previous Judgement. The case gained significant attention when it was admitted by the Supreme Court of India, as it has the potential to redefine the boundaries of euthanasia laws in the country. The court’s decision has far-reaching implications for patients, medical professionals, and the legal community.
The matter came for hearing before a five-judge bench consisting of Justices K.M.Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and C.T. Ravikumar. The arguments presented by both Common Cause and the Union of India raise important legal, ethical, and constitutional questions, which the court considered whilst delivering its judgment. The apex court delivered its judgement on 24th of January, 2023.
KEY ISSUES
- Whether the court should issue suitable directions or set in place norms to provide for what is described as Advanced Directives?
- Whether even in the absence of Advanced Directives, when a person is faced with a medical condition with no hope of recovery and is continued on life support system/ medicines, life support should be withdrawn?
- Another constitutional question that raised in the case is the scope of judicial review and the court’s role in shaping social policies.
CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER
The petitioners in the Common Cause case argue that the right to life includes the right to die with dignity, and individuals should have the autonomy to decide the manner and timing of their death. They contend that the current legal framework denies individuals this fundamental right and imposes unnecessary suffering on those facing unbearable pain or terminal illnesses.
The petitioners further argue that the distinction between passive and active euthanasia is arbitrary and lacks a rational basis. They contend that the current legal framework, by allowing passive euthanasia but prohibiting active euthanasia, creates an artificial distinction that is not based on logical or ethical grounds. They seek to challenge this distinction and advocate for a comprehensive legal framework that allows for both forms of euthanasia under strict safeguards.
The petitioners further argue that the court has a duty to interpret the Constitution in a manner that reflects the changing social norms and evolving understanding of individual rights. They contend that the court should take a proactive approach and expand the scope of euthanasia legality to align with the principles of autonomy, dignity, and compassion.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT
The Union of India, representing the government, opposes the petition and argues that the existing legal framework strikes an appropriate balance between individual rights and the state’s interest in protecting life. They contend that the current restrictions on euthanasia are necessary to prevent potential abuses and protect vulnerable individuals from being coerced or forced into making irreversible decisions.
The Union of India maintains that the existing legal framework, which allows for passive euthanasia under strict safeguards, provides a compassionate and humane option while also safeguarding the sanctity of life. They argue that the legalization of active euthanasia could lead to significant ethical and moral dilemmas, potentially infringing upon the rights of individuals who are unable to make informed decisions or are susceptible to external pressures and that the existing legal framework, which allows for passive euthanasia under strict safeguards, provides a compassionate and humane option while also safeguarding the sanctity of life.
The Union of India, on the other hand, maintains that the court should exercise judicial restraint and defer to the legislature to address complex moral and ethical issues like euthanasia. They argue that the court’s role is limited to interpreting existing laws and should not extend to making policy decisions that have far-reaching societal implications.
OVERVIEW OF COMMON CAUSE VS. UNION OF INDIA 2018
In order to analyse the 2023 judgement, one has to have an understanding of the 2018 judgement in the Common Cause vs. Union of India case. The petitioners, represented by the non-governmental organization Common Cause, argued that individuals have the right to die with dignity, and the current legal restrictions on euthanasia violate their fundamental rights.
The petitioners in the Common Cause case argued that the right to life includes the right to die with dignity, and individuals should have the autonomy to decide the manner and timing of their death. They contended that the current legal framework denies individuals this fundamental right and imposes unnecessary suffering on those facing unbearable pain or terminal illnesses.
The Constitution bench relied extensively in the cases of Re Quinlan and Pretty vs. The United Kingdom and recognized the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right and declared these rights as an extension of the right to privacy and administering passive euthanasia through “Advanced Medical Directives.”
The bench in this case created guidelines regarding passive euthanasia under which a double scrutiny by primary and secondary medical boards is conducted. Further in the guidelines it has been stated that:
- The person executing the directive should be an adult and a person of sound mind and it should be in written format with consent.
- The advanced directive should be executed in presence of two witnesses countersigned by the Judicial Magistrate of first class and is kept in the custody of the concerned district court.
- The executor must appoint a guardian, who in cases where the executor becomes incapable of execution, executes the directive.
- The primary and Secondary medical boards, consisting of minimum four members with atleast twenty years of experience, are constituted for scrutiny of the authenticity of the advanced directive before execution.
COURT’S DECISION
The Supreme Court delivered its verdict on 23rd of January,2023 in which the apex court reaffirmed that the right to die with dignity was a fundamental right under Article 21.
The Court clarified that the right to die with dignity was a positive liberty given to patients suffering from incurable diseases.
It also discussed the distinction between active and passive euthanasia and allowed for the acceptance of Advance Medical Directives in the country. The apex court has made certain modifications to ease the process and to remove the difficulties in the advanced directives. The important modifications includes:
- The countersigning of the will must be done by notary or gazetted officer which was assigned to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class in the previous guidelines.
- Further the secondary medical board which was earlier constituted by the jurisdictional court but according to the present guidelines it can be constituted by the concerned hospital itself.
- The number of members in both primary and secondary medical boards has been reduced to three from a minimum of four members in the earlier guidelines and the required experience has also been reduced from twenty years to five years.
- The boards must scrutinize and decide within 24 hours of withdrawal of further treatment while the previous judgement did not specify any time period.
- Lastly the records were earlier maintained by the respective district court but now, the living will, will be a part of the national health record.
IMPLICATIONS
- The ruling in the Common Cause case established the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, providing relief to terminally ill individuals who wish to make informed end-of-life decisions.
- The case also highlighted the significance of advance directives, enabling individuals to express their end-of-life instructions when they are no longer capable of doing so themselves.
- The judgment has had a profound impact on the euthanasia laws and the right to a dignified death in India, emphasizing the importance of bodily autonomy, privacy, and the right to die with dignity.
CRITICISMS AND CONTROVERSIES SURROUNDING THE CASE
This case has not been without its fair share of criticisms and controversies. The issue of euthanasia is inherently divisive, and the case has sparked intense debates and disagreements among various stakeholders.
One of the primary criticisms raised against the petitioners is the potential for abuse and the slippery slope argument. Opponents argue that legalizing euthanasia could create a dangerous precedent and open the door to involuntary euthanasia or the euthanasia of vulnerable populations. They contend that strict safeguards and robust regulations may not be sufficient to prevent potential abuses, and any extension of euthanasia.
CONCLUSION
The Common Cause vs. Union of India case has significantly contributed to the discourse on euthanasia laws and the right to die with dignity in India. The ruling has set a precedent for the recognition of individual autonomy in end-of-life decisions and the acceptance of advance directives as a means of safeguarding the right to self-determination and bodily integrity. Regardless of the court’s decision, the Common Cause case has sparked a much-needed conversation about the right to die with dignity and the importance of comprehensive legislation on end-of-life choices in India. It has brought the issue of euthanasia to the forefront and highlighted the need for a compassionate and nuanced approach to this complex issue.
As the legal battle unfolds, it is important for society to engage in thoughtful and respectful discussions, considering the perspectives of medical professionals, legal experts, religious groups, and individuals who have personal experiences with end-of-life decisions. Only through open dialogue and a careful examination of the ethical, moral, and legal aspects can we hope to find a balanced and compassionate approach to euthanasia in India.
REFERENCES
