TABLE OF CONTENT

SR NO PARTICULARS PAGE NO
1 INDEX OF ABBREVIATION 2
2 INDEX OF AUTHORITY 3
3 STATUTES REFERRED 4
4 WEBSITES REFERRED 5
5 STATEMENT 6
OF
JURISDICTIO
N
6 STATEMENT OF FACTS 7
7 ISSUES RAISED 8
8 SUMMARY OF 9
ARGUMENTS
9 ARGUMENTS ADVANCE 10-11
10 PRAYER 12

1
 INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

APPL APPEAL
NO NUMBER
GOVT GOVERNMENT
U/S UNDER SECTION
S SECTION
VS VERSUS

2
 INDEX OF AUTHORITY

STATUTES
INDIAN PENAL CODE
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

3
 Statutes referred

S NO. STATUTES REFERRED

1. Section of IPC 302 & 304
2. Section of IPC 309
3. Article 14 of Indian
Constitution
4. Article 19 of Indian
Constitution
5. Article 21 of Indian
Constitution

WEBSITES REFERRED

4
1. http://articlesmanupatra.com

2. http://times.indiatimes.com

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

5
The petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court under

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Ms. Aruna was a nurse in the reputed Hospital in Mumbai. In

November 1993, she was raped and strangled by ward boy, Shri
6
 Raju Valmiki, of the same hospital while changing her clothes
in the hospital basement. Valmiki strangulated Ms. Aruna with
a dog chain around her neck.

2. The attack cut off oxygen supply from her brain leaving her
blind, deaf, paralysed and in a vegetative state.

3. From the day of the assault Ms. Aruna have been surviving on
mashed food. She is not able to move her hands or legs, talk or
perform the basic functions of a human being.

4. In 2009, journalist and rights activist, Shri Mohan Rathore filed

a case before Supreme Court, seeking that Ms. Aruna be
allowed to die. The bench in this case faced with the challenge
to section 306 of the IPC relating to abetment of suicide which
sought to rely on the earlier ruling in P. Raithnam case which
had held section 309 of the IPC as being unconstitutional as
being violative of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution.

5. However, in 2011, the court rejected the plea for Shri Rathore
since the Centre opposed the recognition of living will. The
Court held that the right to life did not include the right to die
as understood under Article 21. The petitioner Shri Rathore
approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, praying for
the declaration that the right to die with dignity is a
fundamental right under Article 21. It was also prayed the
Court to issue directions to the Union Government to allow
terminally ill patients to execute "living wills' for appropriate
action in the event that they are admitted to hospitals.

6. As an alternative, the counsel on behalf of Ms Aruna sought

guidelines from the Court on this issue, and the appointment of
an expert committee comprising lawyers, doctors, and social
scientists to determine the aspect of executing living wills.

7
 STATEMENT OF 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?

8
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE

1. When a person is in a permanent vegetative state (PVS), should

withholding or withdrawal of life sustaining therapies be
permissible or `not unlawful’?

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that

terminally ill persons or those suffering from chronic diseases
must not be subjected to cruel treatments and withholding of
life in such a manner is not lawful, thereby denying them the
right to die in a dignified manner.

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?

It is prayed to the Court that since the patient has previously

expressed her wish not to have life sustaining treatments by
making an informed choice through a living will, her wish be
respected when the situation arises. An individual's right to
execute advance medical directives is an assertion of the right
to bodily integrity and self- determination and does not depend
on any recognition or legislation by a State.

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?

In this case the patient herself has given a living will not to
have life sustaining treatments through medication, so the
question of her family or next of kin making a request to

9
 withhold or withdraw life sustaining treatments does not arise.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

It is humbly submitted by the Petitioner to the Hon’ble Court that the

right to life guaranteed under article 21 includes the right to life with
utmost dignity. It must therefore also include the right to die with
dignity. Article 21 also protects any person from deprivation of his
life or liberty except by the procedure established by law. Any
individual suffering from any terminal illness or is in a permanent
vegetative state must be included under the ambit of the "right to die"
in order to end the prolonged suffering and agony. Ms. Aruna lacks
any awareness of her surroundings, is even devoid of the ability to
chew her food, can't express anything on her own, and is just
bedridden for the past so many years with no scope of improvement.
The patient is virtually dead.

Euthanasia, also commonly known as mercy killing is a way of

putting someone painlessly into death. This act is done for a person
who is suffering from painful and incurable disease allowing them to
die by curbing treatment or by withdrawing artificial life support
equipment. The word euthanasia originated from Greece which means
good death. The request for untimely ending of life has become a
matter of debate among different individuals in present-day. This
debate includes many aspects of the society such as legal, ethical,
human rights, religious, health, social and cultural aspects etc.

However, in India, active euthanasia is considered straight

infringement of section 302 2 and section 3043 of the IPC. Moreover,
physician-assisted suicide is an offense under section 309 4 of IPC.

From the day a person is born, he beholds some birth rights. Right to
life is one of the basic and fundamental right without which any given
right cannot be enjoyed. This also includes the right of a dying man to
die with dignity. However, the 'right to die with dignity' isn't to be
mistaken for the right to die an unnatural demise shortening the
regular range of life. Consequently, the idea of right to life is integral

10
to the discussion on the issue of Euthanasia and so also authorizing
the Right to Die or Euthanasia. Therefore, this petition is filed under
article 32 of the Indian Constitution.

11
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised,

arguments advanced and authorities cited the Honourable Court
be please to adjudge and declare that:

1. The petition filed by petitioner is maintainable under Article

21 and 32 of Indian Constitution.
2. It is most humbly prayed that the life of Ms. Aruna, who is in
a vegetative state and constantly bed ridden for the past so
many years, be allowed a peaceful death, by following due to
medical procedures.

And for this kindness, the Petitioner, as duty bound as ever, shall
humbly pray.

12