Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Aruna Shanbaug Vs Union of India (Aruna Shanbaug Case Summary)
Aruna Shanbaug Vs Union of India (Aruna Shanbaug Case Summary)
All Posts Internships Jobs Opportunities Law Notes Exam Materials Career Guide Law Colleges CLAT UG Legal News
Aruna Shanbaug vs Union of India [Aruna Shanbaug Case Summary] Want to stay updated with new
updates?
Case Brief
In the Supreme Court case, Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2009 against the Union of India
and others. The bench comprised Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra. The case, decided on 7th March 2011, was a
landmark in criminal original jurisdiction.
Aruna Shanbaug, a petitioner, sought relief related to euthanasia and the right to die with dignity. The court’s decision, which
differentiated between active and passive euthanasia, established guidelines for the latter in exceptional circumstances. This case
played a pivotal role in shaping the legal discourse on end-of-life decisions in India.
Contents [ hide ]
1. Facts of Aruna Shanbaug Case
2. Issues Raised
3. Petitioner’s Argument
4. Respondent’s Arguments
5. Judgment in Aruna Shanbaug vs Union of India
6. Critical Analysis
7. Aruna Shanbaug Case Summary
The next day, on November 28, 1973, Aruna was found unconscious on the floor with blood all around her. A cleaner discovered
her in this state. The strangulation had cut off oxygen to her brain, causing severe damage to the cortex and a contusion in the
brain stem, along with an injury to the cervical cord.
In 2009, after 36 years since the incident, a friend of Aruna filed a petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. For all these
years, Aruna had been in a ‘Permanent Vegetative State,’ unable to move her limbs and reliant on mashed food. She was
completely dependent on KEM Hospital in Mumbai for her care.
In response to the petition, KEM Hospital and Bombay Municipal Corporation filed a counter-petition, leading to disagreements
between the two parties. To better understand the situation, the Supreme Court appointed a team of three experienced doctors to
investigate and provide a report on Aruna Shanbaug’s mental and physical condition.
Law Notes
The doctors studied her complete medical history and concluded that her brain was not dead. She exhibited a unique way of
understanding and reacting to situations. Additionally, her body language did not suggest any desire to end her life. The nursing Case Briefs
staff also showed diligence in taking care of her. As a result, the court believed that euthanasia was not necessary in this case.
Law Notes for All Subjects
Issues Raised
Administrative Law Notes
Should the withdrawal of life-sustaining systems and means for a person who is in a vegetative state (PVS) should be
Law of Contracts Notes
permissible?
Does a person’s family or next friend have the authority/ right to seek the withholding or removal of life-supporting
Constitutional Law Notes
measures if the individual has not made such a request already?
Whether Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug be declared dead?
Corporate Law Notes
Should the Right to Die fall within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution?
Whether sections 306 and 309 of IPC be constitutionally valid?
CRPC Notes
Should euthanasia be permitted and what legal issues revolve around it?
Ms. Virani contended in Aruna Shanbaug v Union of India that Aruna, the victim, lacked consciousness, was unable to chew her Human Rights Law Notes
food and had been bedridden for 36 years with no hope of improvement. According to the petitioner, withholding food would not
be killing Aruna but helping her die peacefully. International Law Notes
Jurisprudence Notes
The hospital staff had developed a close emotional bond with Aruna, with one member willing to care for her without pay. They
argued against legalising passive euthanasia, claiming it could be abused by family members, undermining societal kindness and
Law of Torts Notes
love.
The apex court in Aruna Shanbaug vs Union of Indialaid down specific procedures and guidelines for granting passive euthanasia
in the “rarest of rare circumstances,” rejecting the petitioner’s plea. It clarified that decisions regarding the withdrawal of life
support could be made by the High Court under Article 226.
When an application is received, the Chief Justice of the High Court must constitute a bench before which a committee of three
reputable doctors should be referred. A thorough examination of the patient should take place and the state and family members
must be given notice issued by the bench. The High Court is required to make a speedy decision.
Critical Analysis
In the landmark Gian Kaur case, the Supreme Court had previously rejected the recognition of the right to die within the right to
life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This recent judgment marks a historical shift by legalizing passive euthanasia in
India, aiming to end the suffering of patients enduring unbearable and prolonged pain. It acknowledges that, despite
advancements in technology, it is crucial to understand that humans should govern and sustain technology, not the other way
around. The judgment emphasises that every citizen is entitled to and has the right to die with dignity.
The court permitted passive euthanasia in “rarest of rare circumstances.” It outlined a procedure, allowing the High Court under
Article 226 to decide on life support withdrawal. The Chief Justice forms a bench, referring the case to a committee of three
doctors. Family and state receive notice and a prompt decision is required.
This judgment marked a shift, legalising passive euthanasia in India, addressing prolonged patient suffering.
Are you tired of missing out on internship, job opportunities and law notes?
Well, fear no more! With 45,000+ students already on board, you don't want to be left behind. Be a part of the coolest legal
community around!
Join our WhatsApp Groups (Click Here) and Telegram Channel (Click Here) and get instant notifications.
NEXT POST
PREVIOUS POST
Which Provision of Factory Act Provides for
Rights of Holder In Due Course
Artificial Humidification?
Amardeep Singh vs Harveen Kaur Bank of Bihar vs Damodar Prasad & Ajudhia Prasad v Chandan Lal
Anr.
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Add Comment *
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Post Comment
these, interviews and internship experiences help students explore LinkedIn followers: 33,000+ (Click Here)
more opportunities in law.
WhatsApp groups: 32,000+ members (Click Here) Advertise with Us