CASE SUMMARY

Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug Vs. Union of India

(2011)4SCC 454
Background of the case
The petitioner in this case, Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug used to work as a
Nurse in King Edward Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai. On the evening of the
27th November 1973 a swecper of the same hospital attacked her and he
wrapped her neck with a dog chain and yanked her back with it. The sweeper
also tried to rape her but when he found out that she was menstruating he
sodomized her. To prevent her from moving or creating any chaos, he twisted that
chain really hard around her neck. Next day, a cleaner found her body lying on
the floor unconscious with blood all over. It was believed that the supply of
Oxygen to the brain stopped because of strangulation by the chain and hence the
brain got damaged. This incident caused permanent damage to her brain and led
her into a permanent vegetative state (PVS). Later an activist-journalist Pinki
Virani filed a petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the constitution
alleging that there is no possibility for her to revive again and get better. So she
should be allowed to go with the passive euthanasia and should be absolved from
her pain and agony.

To this petition the respondent parties i.e, KEM Hospital and Bombay Municipal
Corporation iled a counter petition. This led to a rise in the disparities among
both the groups. Since there were disparities, the Supreme Court in order to get a
better picture of the situation appointed a team of 3 eminent doctors to
investigate and provide a report of the exact mental and physical condition of
Aruna Shanbaug. During this study doctors investigated her entire medical
history and opined that her brain is not dead. She has her own way of
understanding and reacting to situations. Also, Aruna's body language did not
show any sign of her willingness to terminate her life. Neither the nursing staff of
the hospital showed any carelessness towards taking care of her. Thus, it was
believed by the doctor that the euthanasia in the current matter is not essential.
She stayed in this position for 42 years and died in 2015.
Issues
1. Does withdrawal of ife sustaining systems and means for a person who is in
a permanent vegetative state (PVS), should be permissible ?
2. lfa patient declares previously that he/she does not want to have life
sustaining measures in case of futile care or a PVS, should his/her wishes be
respected in such a situation?
O Does the family or next of kin of a person get to make a request to withhold
or withdraw life sustaining systems, in case a person himself has not placed
such a request previously?

Judgement
The Hon'ble Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India,
comprising Justice
Markandey Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra, delivered this judgement on
7th of March, 2011. The court declared that Aruna is not brain dead
and for its
judgement relied on the doctor's report and definition of brain death given under
the Transportation of Human Organs Act, 1994. She was able to
breathe on her
Own without a machine's support, she had
feelings and used to show some
symptoms. Though she was in a PVS but still her condition was stable. So the
grounds presented here are not sufficient for terminating her life. It
would be
unjustifiable. Further, the court while addressing the issue opined that in the
present case next to the kin of the patient would be the staff of the KEM
Hospital
not Pinki Virani. Thus, the right to take any such
decision on behalf of her is
vested in KEM Hospital. In the present case it was the food on which
she was
surviving. Thus removal of life saving techniques would here mean depriving her
of food which is not justified in Indian Law in any way.

The Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia in certain conditions. But

the court decided that in order to prevent misuse of this provision in the
future,
the power to determine the termination of a person's life would be subjected to
High Court's approval following a due procedure.

Whenever any application will be filed in High Court for passive euthanasia, the
Chief Justice of the High Court should constitute a Bensh of atleast two judges
decinding the matter that whether such termination should be granted or not.
The Bench before laying out any judgement should consider the opinion of a
Bench
COmmittee of 3 reputed doctors. These doctors are also nominated by the
appointing
after discussing with the appropriate medical practitioners. Along with
issue a notice to the state,
this committee, it is also the duty of the court to
made
relatives, kins and friends and also provide them with a copy of the report
is possible. And after hearing all the
Dy a committee of doctors, as soon as it
judgement. This procedure is to be followed in
Sides, the court should deliver the
India everywhere until any legislation is passed on the subject.

keeping all the important facts of the

In the Ultimate decision of this case, by
was denied euthanasia. Court also
case in consideration, Aruna Shaunbaug
hospital staff feels a need for the
opined that if at any time in the future, the
prescribed rules. The
same, they can approach the High Court under these
relating to passive
verdict of this case has helped in clarifying the issues
guidelines which are to be
euthanasia in India by providing a broad structure of
section 309 of the IPC. We
followed. The court also recommended the repealing of
emergence of two
have discussed all about the case. Now let's discuss the
been discussed a lot in
important features which came out in this case and have
subsequent events.

Judgement Analysis
Euthanasia
Euthanasia, as we all know also known as mercy killing, is an act or practice of
painlessly putting to death persons suffering from painful and incurable disease
or incapacitating physical isorder or allowing them to die by withholding
treatment or withdrawing artificial life-support measures.

It can be of two types Active or Passive. Active Euthanasia is the use of some
hazardous substance or lethal methods to kill a person. Passive Euthanasia is
stopping some medical treatment in the absence of which a person is likely to die.
The passive euthanasia can be both voluntary and involuntary. When the consent
from a patient is taken it becomes voluntary and in cases when a patient is not in
a condition to provide consent and the decision on his/her behalf is taken by
some other person, then it is involuntary.
 down guidelines for passive
In Aruna Shanbaug's case Supreme Court laid
euthanasia. These guidelines provided for withdrawal of life support system
This verdict made passive
Which can ultimately lead to a person's death.
be decided by the
euthanasia possible in India in certain conditions which will
Court passed another order in the
Hg Court. Later in the year 2018, Supreme
was
Case of Common Cause Vs. Union of India. in which right to die with dignity
again recognized and passive euthanasia was legalized and permit was given to
withdraw the life supporet system of those who are terminaly ill and are in lile
long coma. Along with this the Court also provided with the concept of "ving
wills",

Living will - tis a document that allows a person to make decisions in advance
wth regard towhat course of treatment he wants in case he gets seriously ill in the
future and becomes unable to take decisions.
Thus, India is now one of the countries in the world which has recognized Passive
Euthanasia. But there are still loopholes in the execution of passive euthanasia.
As after Shanbaug case, it was made mandatory to take High Court's permission
before every case, so it was a tedious process. And now in this new judgement it
has been made harder to give passive euthanasia an effect as now it involves
execution of the directive in presence of two witnesses, authentication by a
Judicial Magistrate, permission from two Medical Boards and a jurisdictional
collector. Thus this delay is a major problem coming in the way, as it defeats the
main purpose of passive euthanasia which is to end the suffering of the person
concerned but on the other hand if the process is made too liberal and easy it ia
always prone to a great misuse.

Thus we can see on both sides there are problems and issues involved and what
we need is a better way out of this all in order to make the concept of passive
euthanasia effective and efficient

Right to Die with Dignity

Our constitution and laws explicitly provides for Right to life to all its subjects. It
is an absolute right guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution and there are
no doubts when it comes to the right to life. But questions always arise whenever
we talk about Right to Die, it has always been an issue of contention for our
lawimakers. The courts in various iudoments have interpreted it differently and
have based their opinion accordingly.
Maharashtra Vs. Maruti Sripati
The Bombay High Court in the case of State of
includes Right to die. It was
Dubal stated that Right to life under Article 21 also
(attempt to commit suicide) is
contended that Section 309 of Indian Penal Code
unconstitutional, as it is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Court
thçs
die is just uncormmon not
Clearly stated in this judgement that Right to Court
Union of India the Supreme
unnatural. Subsequently in P. Rathinam Vs.
Right to live also includes Right not to live under Article 21 of
also accepted that
Kaur Vs. State of Punjab, the Supreme
our Constitution. But later in a case Gian
overruled the P .Rathinam's judgement and declared that Right to life does
Court Right to life
same time court also stated that
not incude Right to die but at the
live with human dignity and the right to die with dignity. The court
will include
that the right to die with dignity should be distinguished from Right to die.
held
takes away natural span of a person's
As right to die is an unnatural death which
dignity is a subsistence provided to a
life, on the other hand the right to die with
condition of PVS, if provided the right
person. For instance, a person who is in a
to die, it willend his suffering, physical and mental agony.
be misconstrued.
Hence, both these rights are altogether different and should not
an
Various nations in the world recognise "Right to Die with Dignity" as
important right for an individual, thus creating a way for passive euthanasia.