ARUNA SHANBAUG CASE (1973)

Author- Sabreen bano, united University prayagraj

On the point 

Aruna Shanbaug date of birth is 1 June 1948 and the birth place was Haldipur, Karnataka, India, died on 18 may 2015 in KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. It is a landmark case because of euthanasia and the right to die with dignity comes under article 21? the fact of case is a victim Aruna Shanbaug age 24 years who is junior nurse in KEM hospital during the work she suffer from a sexually assaulted and rubbered by hospital janitor (sohanlal bhartha Valmiki).

Aruna Shanbaug having an eight brother and sisters after passing the class 8 she came to Mumbai with her elder sister for pursuing an nurse degree and training. After that she work as a nurse in KEM hospital Mumbai this hospital mainly for dogs Aruna performs her work with responsibility. there is a word boy sohanlal one day he accusing sohanlal of stealing dogs’ food and selling outside and also not work properly with responsibility this complain was filed by Aruna to the manager.

 Abstract 

In 1995 this case becomes landmark because of passive euthanasia and right to die with dignity which comes under article 21 right to life. In this case when Aruna complains about sohanlal fault, he gets aggressive with Aruna and decided to taking revenge with her. After that day sohanlal decided to take revenge with her one day after completing the duty Aruna visited in basement for changing her clothes at that time sohanlal follow Aruna with dog chain for attack on Aruna he chosen this time because he knows no one would come there and he completed their crime and take revenge with her, he strangled her so that her voice could not come out  and she cannot resist attempt to rape, firstly he attempt a rape but according to report at that time she having a menstruation he commit unnatural sex with Aruna. In morning when cleaner comes to clean the basement, they saw a horrific site that Aruna body with unconscious, without clothes with lots of blood on the floor, she just laying on the floor. After this crime sohanlal run away from that place after 11 to 12 hours later she get admitted and surgery or treatment started, doctors says that because or dog chain stuck on her neck continuously 11 to 12 hours, oxygen and blood would not circulate in brain cause of that she gone in coma her body totally in vegetative mood. After 42 years of this case Aruna got passive euthanasia for right to die with dignity. 

Use of legal jargon

This case there are legal aspect that the constitution who provide article 21 right to life can there shall be a right to die or not? Or euthanasia is legal in India or any country? First, we discuss about article 21 “NO PERSSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF HIS LIFE OR PERSONAL LIBERTY EXCEPT ACCORDING TO A PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW” this article basically talks about fundamental rights of every person no one can violate any person’s fundamental right if anyone can do, they were be liable for punishment and compensation. Article 21 protect the right of life include right to live with dignity, right to movement, right to healthy food ,environment etc. according to this article restriction of life must be reasonable and fair procedure it is not an arbitrary and unreasonable.

Second, legal aspect of this case is euthanasia. Euthanasia, it is a type of poison given for relief of life from trouble of  pain and suffering from unrecoverable disease. Euthanasia is two types first is active and second is passive, active euthanasia – in active euthanasia poison given by injection or medicine which cause death constantly it is deliberate action of causing the death. And passive euthanasia means withdraw the life holding object from patient treatment by this patient die naturally. This method uses only by the approval of government with having a factful reason. 

THE PROOF 

In this case an activist pinky Virani who file writ petition under article 32 in honorable supreme court of India, she addressed that can we give passive euthanasia for relief of life from such painful struggle to Aruna Shanbaug because no recovery can discover in the past 36 years. She lives only life support, she totally depended on another person, she can’t move, no hearing ability she gone into vegetative mode. According to pinky Virani this not an any life she wants to approval of euthanasia for the victim who suffering last 36 years on coma or depended upon another person. According to article 21 in writ petition under article 21 she wants right with dignity for victim. Before giving a judgement supreme court appoint three doctors to know the condition of Aruna or to know about the body language of Aruna that she wants to die or not, because euthanasia is a very big decision for judiciary, it is decision for withdraw a someone’s life. After all hearing honorable supreme court decline the petition of pinky Virani.

After living 41 years in life support or in coma she dies with pneumonia. In this case honorable s supreme court held that passive euthanasia is give in rare of the rarest case, also provide some guidelines and says euthanasia can be give in some case by proper reason.

Under high court article 226, says that by withdraw the life support given passive euthanasia to cause death with dignity and reduce from pain and trouble.

1 guide by supreme court was writ petition can file under high court by article 226.

2 guidelines if any person who is in vegetative mode and live only life-support then high court have right to first to take consent of family members, relative, or any guardian who appointed by any of courts taking their consent or appoint 3 doctors for medical report or condition of that Patient after all formalities high court can allow for euthanasia.

3 guidelines given by supreme court that before giving euthanasia high court have to knowledge about all the condition of patient and her body behaviors.

Another guideline provided by supreme court is at that time when parliament cannot make any separate law for this then to follow all those guidelines which given by supreme court.

In this case accused sohanlal Valmiki punish only conviction of attempt to rape, robbery and attempt to murder (sec 307,392) after 7 years in 1980 he released from imprisonment.

Case
  1. GIAN KAUR V STATE OF PUNJAB (1996)

Date of judgement 21 march 1996, five judges’ bench.

Hon’ble justice J.S. Verma, G.N Ray, N.P Singh, Faizan Uddin and G.T. nana vat.

Legal provisions of this case – article 21 right to life, of constitution. Section 306 of Ipc and 108 of bns (2023) abetment of suicide. And section 309 of ipc and 226 of bns attempt to commit suicide. 

Fact of case  

 The appellant Gian Kaur and her husband harbans Singh were convicted by the trail court under section 306 for abetment of suicide, Indian penal code,1860.

Each sentenced to six years rigorous imprisonment and fine 2000. Or in default, further rigorous imprisonment for nine months, for abetting the commission of suicide by Kulwant Kaur.

On appeal of the high court, the conviction of both has been maintained but the sentence of Gian Kaur alone has been reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three years.

The matter was taken to the supreme court of India, where Gian Kaur and her husband challenged the constitutional validity of section 306 IPC.

In this case supreme court held that constitutionally of section 306 and 309 of the Indian penal code, ruling that the right to life does not include the right to die. The court dismissed Gian Kaur’s appeal and held her accountable for aiding and abetting suicide.

BAHESHWAR NATH V. CIT (1959)

In this case doctrine of waiver was discussed, where in the court held that the government cannot implement any law which is against article 13 of the Indian constitution and the citizen cannot voluntarily waive off their fundamental rights.

P. RATHINAM V UNION OF INDIA 

P. rathinam and nag Bhushan Patnaik had filed petitions challenging the constitutional validity of section 309 of the ipc. Section 309 punishes anyone who attempt to commit suicide with simple imprisonment for up to one year. The supreme court drew a parallel between the other fundamental rights- just as the right to freedom of speech under article 19 gives the right to speak but also includes the right to not speak, the right to live under article 21 includes the right to not live. Thus, section 309 was held to be unconstitutional.

FAQS
  • Does article 21 includes right to die?

Article 21 of the Indian constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, does not include the right to die. The supreme held that right to life is a fundamental right to each person no cone shall have right to die or revoke there life with his will.

  • Does euthanasia is legal in India?

In India there are passive euthanasia are legal but active euthanasia are illegal. 

Leave a Reply

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