NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF ADVANCED LEGAL STUDIES
(A STATE UNIVERSITY EST. BY ACT 27, 2005 OF KERALA STATE LEGISLATURE)
KALAMASSERY, KOCHI - 683503, KERALA
SKILL BASED LEARNING
CASE ANALYSIS REPORT
SEMESTER-II
ARUNA RAMCHANDRA SHANBAUG V. UNION OF INDIA
SUBMITTED BY:
S.Adhistaa
Roll no: 2044
SUBMITTED TO:
The Registrar
The National University of Advanced Legal Studies
Page 1 of 9
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Facts of the case ........................................................................................................... 3
Issues ........................................................................................................................... 4
The petitioner’s Arguments.......................................................................................... 5
The Respondent’s Arguments ...................................................................................... 6
Reasoning of The Court ............................................................................................... 7
Judgment ..................................................................................................................... 8
Social Impacts brought by the case .............................................................................. 9
Page 2 of 9
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner in this case Ms.Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug was a staff who worked at the King
Edward Memorial hospital in Mumbai. On 27th November 1973 one of the sweepers of the hospital
attacked Ms.Aruna in an attempt to rape her. He strangled her neck using a dog chain to restraint her
movements. The sweeper sodomized Ms.Aruna when he realised that she was menstruating.
Ms.Aruna Shanbaug was found by one of the cleaners at the hospital in an unconscious condition
with blood covered all around her on the next day which was on 28th November, 1973. Ms.Aruna
was then eventually admitted at the Kind Edward Memorial hospital itself for her care. A group of
doctors after examining Ms.Aruna Shanbaug stated that she had a severe damage in the cortex of the
brain which was essentially caused by the strangulation of her neck using the dog chain that had
ceased the oxygen from getting supplied to the brain. Additionally, Ms.Aruna Shanbaug was injured
in her cervical cord and sustained contusion. After 36 years of the incident, on 2009, a friend of
Ms.Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug filed a petition under Article 36 of the Indian Constitution. The
petitioner prayed that Ms. Aruna was in a “permanent vegetative state” for 36 years without any
improvement in her condition and therefore prayed for the peaceful death of Ms.Aruna Shanbaug
with the usage of euthanasia. The Supreme Court in order to arrive at a conclusion and to clear the
doubts that existed both the sides, appointed three experienced doctors to examine Ms.Aruna for
which they stated that the petitioner Ms.Aruna Shanbaug possessed some stimuli and unique way of
understanding, concluding that her brain was not completely dead.
Page 3 of 9
ISSUES
1. When a person is in a permanent vegetative state (PVS), should withholding or withdrawal of
life sustaining therapies be permissible or `not unlawful’?
2. If the patient has previously expressed a wish not to have life-sustaining treatments in case of
futile care or a PVS, should his/ her wishes be respected when the situation arises?
3. In case a person has not previously expressed such a wish, if his family or next of kin makes
a request to withhold or withdraw futile life-sustaining treatments, should their wishes be
respected?
Page 4 of 9
THE PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS
The counsel for the petitioner placed the contention that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution that
provides for the “Right to Life” encompasses the Right to Life with the utmost dignity. The counsel
argued that the Right to life with dignity recognised by the Constitution of India also includes the
Right to die with dignity for individuals suffering from terminal illness and who are in “Permanent
vegetative state” in order to end their lives peacefully that will free them from prolonged pain and
suffering. The counsel further contended that the petitioner Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug has been in
a permanent vegetative state for 36 years exhibiting no improvement in her condition. It was further
added that she had no sense of awareness, exhibited the incapacity to chew food, nor did she was
able to express herself independently.
Page 5 of 9
THE RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
The respondents contended that the petitioner Aruna Shanbaug has been treated with utmost care by
the hospital staff and nurses for 36 years. They stated that the hospital staffs have showcased sincere
responsibility and willingness in taking care of Ms.Aruna and that they are against the idea of the
euthanization of the petitioner. In addition to this, they also stated that since Ms.Aruna was already
60 years of age, she could succumb to death naturally.
The respondents strongly contended that the hospital and the staffs have expressed their diligence
and dignity in taking care of Ms.Aruna in all her fundamental needs and that the act of euthanasia is
highly prone to abuse and misuse of the same. They further argued that legalizing euthanasia could
bring in critical issues in the medical sphere. They additionally stated that the hospital and the staffs
have a personal and an emotional connection with the patient that must be fundamentally taken into
consideration by the court. The respondents also put forth the argument that it would be inhuman to
euthanize the petitioner as she had the Right to live and that she was not in a position to give consent
to the same and therefore, euthanizing the petitioner Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug must not be
accepted.
Page 6 of 9
REASONING OF THE COURT
The court in the pursuance to form a conclusion studied and explained the differences between
Active and Passive euthanasia. It provided that Active Euthanasia is the direct ending of one’s life by
administering or injecting lethal substances. On the other hand, Passive euthanasia is the withdrawal
or withholding of treatments that are life supporting. Active Euthanasia, except permitted by certain
legislations is criminalised worldwide and in the Indian context is a direct offence under Sections
302 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This also encompasses the offence under section 309 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which is the physician assisted suicide. Therefore, in simple words, the
court stated that the distinction between Active and Passive euthanasia is the deliberate ending of life
that is done in Active Euthanasia which is absent in passive euthanasia. The Supreme Court of India
then established the requisite guidelines for the granting of passive euthanasia which was only for
‘rarest of rare cases’, eventually rejecting the petitioner’s plea as the case in hand did not fall under
that ambit. The Apex Court of India rejected the plea by the petitioner after the careful consideration
of the report of the court appointed doctors that stated that Ms.Aruna Shanbaug was not completely
brain dead and possessed stimuli and unique way of understanding. They also considered the
contention placed before the court by the respondents which was about the misuse and the abuse of
euthanasia.
Page 7 of 9
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court of India dismissed the petition denying the petitioner of passive euthanasia. The
court also conclusively held that the High court can take decisions with regards to the withdrawal of
life support under article 226 of the Constitution of India. It further stated that the Chief Justice of
the High Court must form a bench and appoint three reputed doctors to examine the petitioner after
the application is received. In addition it held that there must be thorough examination of the patient
and the state along with the family members should be provided with a notice issued by the bench. It
also further held that the High Court must provide speedy decision.
Page 8 of 9
SOCIAL IMPACTS BROUGHT BY THE CASE
The case of Aruna Shanbaug v Union of India is a landmark judgment that profoundly impacted the
society. It raised awareness on the different elements surrounding life and death which is essentially
about euthanasia. The case underscored the existence of ethical dilemmas in both the legal and the
medical sphere that significantly impacted the society at large which led to the creation of a debate
whether to legalize euthanasia or not. This case has also been an important reference to a variety of
cases that contend the inclusivity of Right to die under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which
was accepted by the Supreme Court while deciding the Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug’s case. On the
whole, this case continues to shed light on the aspects of end of life decisions and other aspects
surrounding withdrawal or withholding of life sustaining measures.
Page 9 of 9
