Question

Passive euthanasia under certain circumstance is permissible - held in the case of

• A. Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug Vs. Union of India
• B. Gian Kaur Vs State of Punjab
• C. State of Maharashtra Vs. Maruty Sripaty Dubal
• D. P. Rathinam Vs Union of India

Hint:

For euthanasia cases in India, remember the progression: 1. \textbf{P. Rathinam} (Right to die exists - later overruled). 2. \textbf{Gian Kaur} (Right to die does NOT exist, but right to die with dignity does). 3. \textbf{Aruna Shanbaug} (Passive euthanasia is permissible with strict guidelines). 4. \textbf{Common Cause} (Living wills are valid, reaffirmed right to die with dignity).

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
Euthanasia, or mercy killing, is the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering. It is broadly categorized into 'active' (involving a specific act, like administering a lethal injection) and 'passive' (withdrawing life-sustaining treatment). The legal status of euthanasia in India has been shaped by several key Supreme Court judgments.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
- Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011): This was the landmark case that explicitly legalized passive euthanasia in India. Aruna Shanbaug was a nurse who had been in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) for decades following a brutal assault. While the Supreme Court rejected the specific plea for her euthanasia filed by a journalist, it used the opportunity to lay down comprehensive guidelines for passive euthanasia. The Court held that passive euthanasia could be permitted for patients who are terminally ill or in a PVS, but only after a rigorous process involving a High Court-monitored medical board's approval.
- Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the 'Right to Life' under Article 21 does not include the 'Right to Die'. However, it distinguished this from the 'Right to die with dignity', paving the way for future discussions on euthanasia.
- P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994): This case had earlier declared Section 309 of the IPC (attempt to commit suicide) as unconstitutional, arguing that the right to life includes the right not to live. However, this judgment was overruled by the larger bench in the Gian Kaur case.
- Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India (2018): This case further built upon the Aruna Shanbaug judgment. The Supreme Court recognized the 'living will' or 'advance medical directive', allowing individuals to decide in advance that they should not be put on life support if they slip into an irreversible coma. It reaffirmed that the Right to Die with Dignity is a fundamental right.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The case that first established the permissibility of passive euthanasia in India under specific circumstances and laid down guidelines was Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India.