Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug Vs Union of India 2011

Author: Jyoti Singh, Delhi Institute of Rural Development


To the point


Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug was a nurse who was a victim of sexual assault and spent her 41 years of life in a vegetative state, her case also highlighted the Euthanasia case throughout the country. She was sexually assaulted while working as a junior nurse in hospital by a hospital janitor, which resulted her 41 years of unbearable pain, later a journalist Pinki Virani filed a plea for Euthanasia, to end her life while the Supreme Court admitted the plea but rejected the idea of active Euthanasia but gave guidelines for passive euthanasia, means to discontinue any kind of life support system by relative, spouse, parents, friends, or next friend.


Euthanasia is the concept where the person who suffering from unbearable pain and suffering is allowed to end their life, the Greek version of this word defines it as a good death, there are two models of euthanasia active and passive, Active means to end the life through injecting some lethal substance where he dies in sleep. Passive is where a life support system like water, food, medicines etc. is discontinued through family, friends, and spouse. This article will focus on the issue around this case and how the Supreme Court managed to find balance While in the process of delivering judgment on Euthanasia.


Use of Legal Jargon


Article 21 of the Indian constitution defines that every person has the right to live and die with liberty, in the above as stated the Journalist Pinki Virani has filed a plea under Article 32 of the Indian constitution asking for protection of the rights of the Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug under Article 21 if right to live with dignity is the utmost right of person than right to death should also be considered as right specifically for the person who is in vegetative state for more than 36 years with no sign of improvement, but only lots of pain to her.


Meanwhile, the Supreme Court while entertaining the plea by the journalist, rejected the idea of active euthanasia after considering the argument made by the respondent and the hospital staff and stated that active euthanasia is a clear violation of a certain section of the Indian penal code (IPC) i.e section 302 IPC punishment for the murder, 304 IPC punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, 309 IPC attempt to commit suicide, also under the assistance of physician is offence. Active Euthanasia is also an offence under section 306 IPC that is abetment to suicide, since euthanasia is an act of mercy killing it attracts the 300(1) of IPC. Also, there are exceptions in certain cases where a person above eighty years accepts death or takes risk of death as mentioned in exception fifth of section 300 IPC. Proviso first of section 92 IPC that is an act done in good faith for the benefit of a person without consent, also struck down the cases included non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Indian law has clearly stated that the right to die is not legal in our country and exceptions can only be considered in the rarest of rare cases that to be after consulting experts while minding the boundaries of the constitution.


The proof


In India court has issued guidelines on passive euthanasia many countries have different views and perspectives on the act of euthanasia.


Canada
In 2016 Canada allowed voluntary euthanasia namely Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) if a person above 18 years of age is suffering from a serious illness or injury with physical and mental pain that is unbearable and there is no sign of recovery, will be assigned to quick and painless death by administrating  MAID after considering from two independent professionals and exploring all other options.


Australia
Voluntary assisted dying (VAD) euthanasia is allowed in six states of Australia, it permits medically ill adult patients to end their lives under medical assistance after considering all the strict regulations and safety. Like Canada Australia has also made strict rules which include the assistance of two medical practitioners who make sure that all other options are explored before taking drastic step.


Japan
As of now, there are no certain laws that support euthanasia in Japan in any form but different legal precedents practice to end life have been witnessed.  In 1955 during the Yokohama District Court Case, guidelines were established for entertaining active euthanasia mainly when the patient is suffering from unbearable pain, the doctor has gone through every medical aspect still no result in the situation of the patient, patient deliberately expressed the wish for dying.


China
In countries like China euthanasia is illegal and considered a crime and illegal act, China opposes supporting someone to end their life. They consider it a punishable offence for committing homicide, there are even many cases that highlight how individuals have been sentenced for performing euthanasia. While medical practitioners in China support this law there are debate roaming around the country on this topic, which is kind of hurting the sentiments of Chinese culture which focuses on filial piety. Whereas Buddhists in China support euthanasia as they consider it as peaceful death avoiding all kinds of suffering.


Moldova
In Moldova, active euthanasia is strictly prohibited and considered an illegal act Assisting in suicide is also considered a crime there, whereas passive euthanasia allows the withdrawal of life support to support nature that to be under certain conditions like when a condition is irreversible and death is the only option left. Passive euthanasia is considered only when there is voluntary perm

ission of the patient under no influence.
Different countries have established diverse views on euthanasia due to its contradictory nature, some argue that giving full control for such practice can be misused by many, and some argue that such acts are creating problems in their religious belief, there are different forms of euthanasia namely active, passive, voluntary, involuntary, non-voluntary. This is a massive task for courts and parliament before allowing any kind of euthanasia.


Abstract


Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug’s case brought the topic of euthanasia into the limelight and the most controversial debate was going on throughout the country where the petitioner was arguing for the legality of euthanasia and demanded the right to die with dignity under Article 21, The other side was the respondent the staff of the hospital who argued that such act can be maliciously used by the patient in future by discontinuing the life support and they argued that Aruna is family to them who is causing no problem to the hospital and the staff, after considering both the sides Supreme court provided a guideline for passive euthanasia also provided that such practice can only be performed in rarest of the rarest case and after considering from the panel of experts.


Case Laws


State v. Sanjay Kumar Bhatia (1985)
The case revolved around where young man who attempted to commit suicide but failed, out of emotional baggage and under pressure, after his failed attempt he was tried under section 309 IPC, attempt to commit suicide, the court condemned such an act and stated that section 309 is inhuman and worthless for this society, and invoked the provision of section 309.


P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994)
The court argued that the right to live forcefully is not considered a right to life, suicide is the last resort for a person dealing with depression who is left with no choices, and such a person needs to be taken care of through special medical practitioners, not through some jailer, further court also repealed section 306 to make Indian penal code sound human instead of promoting inhuman laws.


Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)
In its landmark judgement Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of section 309 stating the fact that the right to life can not extend to the right to die, especially in a country like India where poverty is a major issue, we cannot allow such act as a matter of choice as this would lead to increase in suicidal rate among people.


Common Cause v. Union of India (2018)
In this landmark judgement Supreme Court recognised the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right and prescribed guidelines in regards to passive euthanasia for terminally ill patients to exercise their rights later court modified certain terms in 2023 for a more approachable way for carrying out such an act.

The court also directed to make sure that before carrying out such acts patients should have information regarding the same or his parents, spouse, relative, or next friend. While pronouncing its decision court also considered its judgement in the Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug and Gian Kaur case. The judgement focus was on the individual choice of whether to end their life on their terms without any pressure.

Conclusion


Summing up this article with the conclusion that the right to life and die is the choice of every individual and we have witnessed our courts give impressive judgement to find the perfect balance between life and death by protecting the rights of every individual and considering all the sentiments. In conclusion, it can be stated that the long debate to find peace between life and death has been finally resolved to provide every individual with the choice to end their long unbearable pain and suffering and die with respect and dignity, but should only be practised in rarest of rare case, generalizing such can be practised will bring wrong impact on the society.

FAQS


What is euthanasia?
Euthanasia is an act of mercy killing mainly practised by medical professionals to provide relief to a person who is suffering from an immense amount of pain and no medication works for them anymore.

Types of euthanasia and its scope?
There are various types of euthanasia, namely Active and passive euthanasia-  Active euthanasia where the person is injected with lethal substances to provide him with rapid relief and he dies in sleep, whereas passive euthanasia is withdrawing any kind of life support system person is on with permission of their closed one. Voluntary euthanasia means it will be done after the voluntarily expressed desire of the patient.

How euthanasia is a contradictory act?
Death is part of life and some consider that death is something that should come without any unnecessary interference from the artificial entity as this hurts their cultural sentiment while some argue that some cases need a different view person who is in unbearable pain should not be allowed to put in more pain and discomfort, there is some argument which makes sense that giving free hand on such kind of act can be misused in future, hence balance is necessary timely.

What is the current legal status of euthanasia in India?
Supreme Court in Common Cause v. Union of India 2018, recognized the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right and provided guidelines for same, and mentioned to use such method in rarest of rare cases only.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *