Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs Union of India (2011) and Its Profound Impact on Euthanasia Law
In 2011, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India, addressing the contentious issue of passive euthanasia. This case not only highlighted the ethical and legal dilemmas surrounding end-of-life care but also set a precedent for future deliberations on the right to die with dignity.
Background of the Case
Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse at King Edward Memorial (KEM) Hospital in Mumbai, was brutally assaulted in 1973 by a ward boy. The attack left her in a persistent vegetative state (PVS), rendering her incapable of any cognitive or motor functions. For over 37 years, she was cared for by the hospital staff, who provided her with basic sustenance and medical attention.
In 2009, journalist Pinki Virani, acting as Aruna’s “next friend,” filed a petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, seeking permission for the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, effectively allowing Aruna to die peacefully. This petition brought the issue of euthanasia to the forefront of legal discourse in India.
Legal Issues Presented
The case raised several critical legal questions:
- Does the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution include the right to die?
- Is passive euthanasia permissible under Indian law?
- Who is authorized to make decisions on behalf of a patient in a PVS regarding the withdrawal of life support?
Arguments by the Petitioner
Pinki Virani contended that continuing to keep Aruna alive in her vegetative state violated her right to live with dignity, as enshrined in Article 21. She argued that the prolonged suffering without any hope of recovery justified the withdrawal of life support. Virani emphasized that passive euthanasia, which involves withholding or withdrawing medical treatment necessary for the continuance of life, should be considered lawful in such circumstances.
Arguments by the Respondents
The hospital staff, who had been caring for Aruna, opposed the petition. They argued that Aruna showed signs of minimal consciousness and that withdrawing life support would be equivalent to ending a life that still had some form of existence. They emphasized their commitment to her care and expressed concerns about the ethical implications of permitting euthanasia.
Court’s Analysis and Judgment
The Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered by Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, undertook a comprehensive analysis of euthanasia, distinguishing between active and passive forms.
- Active Euthanasia: Involves deliberate action to end a person’s life, such as administering a lethal injection. The Court noted that active euthanasia is illegal in India, as it amounts to culpable homicide under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
- Passive Euthanasia: Entails withdrawing medical treatment with the deliberate intention to hasten a terminally ill patient’s death. The Court observed that passive euthanasia is not explicitly illegal and can be permissible under certain circumstances.
The Court referred to the earlier case of Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab (1996), where it was held that the right to life does not include the right to die. However, the Court in Gian Kaur acknowledged that in cases of terminal illness, accelerating the process of death to reduce suffering could be permissible.
In the absence of specific legislation on euthanasia, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for passive euthanasia:
- Decision-Making Authority: The decision to withdraw life support should be made by the patient’s close relatives or, in their absence, by a “next friend.” However, such a decision requires approval from the High Court to ensure that it is in the patient’s best interest.
- Procedure: A petition should be filed before the High Court, which would constitute a bench of at least two judges to decide the matter. The Court should seek the opinion of a committee of three reputed doctors, including a neurologist, a psychiatrist, and a physician, to assess the patient’s condition.
- Safeguards: The High Court must issue notices to all stakeholders, including close relatives, the hospital, and the State, to ensure a transparent and fair process.
Applying these guidelines to Aruna’s case, the Supreme Court concluded that while passive euthanasia could be legally permissible, Aruna’s situation did not warrant the withdrawal of life support. The Court emphasized that the hospital staff, who had been caring for her diligently for decades, were best suited to make decisions regarding her care. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and Aruna continued to receive care until her natural death in 2015.
Impact on cases which are related to Aruna ramchandra case
The Aruna Shanbaug judgment had a profound impact on subsequent legal discourse and cases concerning end-of-life decisions:
- Common Cause vs. Union of India (2018): Building upon the Aruna Shanbaug case, the Supreme Court recognized the validity of “living wills” and advanced directives, allowing individuals to outline their preferences for end-of-life care in situations where they might become incapacitated. This judgment provided a legal framework for passive euthanasia, emphasizing the right to die with dignity as an intrinsic part of Article 21.
- Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab (1996): While predating the Aruna Shanbaug case, the Gian Kaur judgment was instrumental in shaping the Court’s views on euthanasia. It held that the right to life does not include the right to die but acknowledged that accelerating death in cases of terminal illness could be permissible, a perspective that influenced the Aruna Shanbaug ruling.
Conclusion
The Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India case marked a significant turning point in India’s legal approach to euthanasia. By distinguishing between active and passive euthanasia and laying down procedural safeguards
Read More Judgment Case Summaries : Anuradha Bhasin Case
Visit Our Youtube Channel