ARUNA RAMCHANDRA SHANBAUG VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS

The judgment passed by the constituent bench of Supreme Court has prompt up the debate on the
‘euthanasia’ or ‘mercy killing’ and has pointed out a legal issue having massive socio-political
consequences that whether the withdrawal of life sustaining system of a patient in Permanent
Vegetative State (PVS) or who is incompetent to take decision in this connection is lawful and
whether the patient or his family or next friend’s previously expressed request or wish to
withhold or withdraw life supporting system should be respected.

The case arose out of the writ petition filed under article 32 of Constitution of India by Ms. Pinki
Singh who claimed to be next fiend of Ms. Aruna Ramachandra Shaunbagh, praying to stop
feeding Aruna Shaunbhag and let her die in peace. It was stated in the writ petition that Aruna
was a staff nurse inking Edward Hospital. One evening she was attacked by a ward boy who
caught her by dog chain and sodomized her and in due process he strangulated her with dog
chain due to which oxygen supply to her brain stopped and her brain got damaged. And since
then she was lying in KEM hospital in permanent vegetative state and nursing staff of the
hospital used to feed her with mashed food.

It was contended by the learned counsel of petitioner that "We live in an age when this Court has
demonstrated, while interpreting Article 21 of the Constitution, that every person is entitled to a
quality of life consistent with his human personality. The right to live with human dignity is the
fundamental right of every Indian citizen". While the counsel on the behalf of the respondent
claims that Aruna Shanbhag has right to life and withdrawal of food and water will be a cruel
and inhuman act towards her. The court after hearing both the sides observed that:

1. The right to life also includes right to die with dignity. Passive euthanasia should be
permitted in certain conditions and should serve the best interest of the patient.
2. That the doctor, next friend and close relatives of the patient can take decision to
withdraw or withheld the life sustaining system of the patient but it need to be approved
by the High Court after following certain procedures.

And the writ petition was dismissed while observing that:

 “Aruna Shanbaug's parents are already dead and other close relatives of her are not
interested in her. The KEM hospital staff, who took care of her day and night for 36 years
are really her next friends, and not Ms. Pinky Virani. Hence it is on the KEM hospital staff
to take decision. The KEM hospital staff have clearly expressed their wish that Aruna
Shanbaug should be allowed to live.”

Death of a person is a significant part of a person’s life. And in the case of Gian Kaur v. State of
Punjab1, court held that Right to life (article 21) does not, by any means, includes right to die. It
is the duty of the state and doctors to save people’s life and unnatural extinction of life would
lead to apathy towards people of the country.2 Therefore, it is important to keep following point
into consideration:

1. Whether the Supreme Court was justified in permitting ‘passive euthanasia’ or ‘living
will’ and in considering right to die with dignity an aspect of right to life under article 21
of Right to life and liberty.

Passive euthanasia3

1
(1996) 2 SCC 648.
2
Suresh Bada Math and Santosh K. Chaturvedi, “Euthanasia: Right to life vs. Right to die”. 136 IJMR. 899 (2012).
3