COMMON CAUSE VS.

UNION OF INDIA
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 215 OF
2005
FACTS
• The petitioners in this case had written letters to the ministry of health and family and the
law ministry in regards of passive euthanasia and living will, but there was no response
from either on of them therefore the petitioners had filed a PIL under Article 32 of the
constitution for legalizing passive euthanasia.
• The petitioners had exclaimed that the constitution of India provide every citizen the right
to life under Article 21 and also the right to live the dignity. That also means that a person
has the right to have a dignified death.
• In current times the world has medical facilities and medical equipment’s sustain or prolong
life unnecessarily which not only is harsh on the patient themself but would be cause a great
level of agony for the relatives too.
• living wills are the written documents that allow patients to give explicit instructions with
regard to the medical treatment to be administered when they are not able to express
informed consent.
CONINUTED…

• This is not the first time that such a case regarding euthanasia has come to that courts, in the case
of P.Rathinam v union of India the court came to a conclusion that article 21 that is right to life
does not include the right to die.
• This was overruled in the case of Gian Kaur v State of Punjab in this particular case the court
had held that euthanasia and assisted suicide is unlawful in India.
• But in the landmark case of Aruna Shanbaug v Union of India finally the supreme court had
made passive euthanasia legal but only in certain exceptional cases.
ISSUES

• Whether Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees the Right to Life includes the Right to
Die?
• Whether passive euthanasia should be permitted on the living will of patient?
• Whether there is any difference in passive euthanasia and active euthanasia?
• Whether an individual has any right to refuse medical treatment including withdrawal from life
saving devices
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONERS:

• Every individual has a right to self-determination, and thus should be permitted to choose their own fate.
• The modern medical technology has found out so many drugs and medicines that unnecessarily prolong life of
causing a lot of distress and agony to the patients and his/her relatives thereof.
• It is better to die rather than being under persistent pain and suffering using medication that does not cure but
prolongs the life of patients.
• In cases of incurable, degenerative, disabling or debilitating condition a person should be allowed to die in
dignity as in majority of the cases the mercy petition is filed by the sufferers, of the family members or any such
caretakers. The burden upon the family is so huge and cuts across various domains such as financial, emotional,
time, physical, mental and social aspects.
• Right to refuse medical treatment is well recognized in law, including medical treatment that sustains or
prolongs life. The right to renounce treatment gives a way for passive euthanasia.
• Euthanasia in terminally ill patients provides an opportunity to advocate for organ donation. This, in turn, would
help many patients suffering organ failure waiting for transplantation. Passive euthanasia not only gives an
individual the ‘Right to die ‘for the terminally ill, but also ‘Right to life‘for the organ-needy patients.
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT

• not all deaths are painful;

• The ‘Right to life’ under Art.21 is a natural right inherited on birth by every citizen , but
euthanasia/suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and, therefore it is hostile and
inconsistent with the concept of ‘right to life’ and thus Right to life does not include right to die.
• It is the duty of the State to protect life and euthanasia would undermine the physician’s duty to
provide care and save life of the patients.
• Allowing euthanasia will discourage the search and invention of new cures and treatments for the
terminally ill and thus there won’t be any prospect with regard to the discovery of possible cure
for the disease in near future.
• Euthanasia would weaken society’s respect for the sanctity of life.
• There is availability of alternatives, such as cessation of active treatment, combined with the use
of effective pain relief
JUDGEMENT

• The Supreme Court in this case held that an individual has a right to die
with dignity as a part of his/her Right to life and personal liberty under
Art.21 of the Indian Constitution. This ruling thus permits the removal of
life-support systems for the terminally ill or those in incurable comas. The
court further permitted individuals to decide against artificial life support,
and recognized the need for creating a living will.

• The Court in this particular case further laid down certain propositions
regarding the procedure for execution of Advance Directives and provided
the guidelines thereof to give effect to passive euthanasia.
CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE

• The passive euthanasia idea is very controversial and poses several

complex political, economic, educational, scientific, legal, and religious
questions. There are generally two classes that are established concerning
passive euthanasia. The first is the ethnic community that does not accept
the right to die and insists that life is a divine gift.
• The second relates to the consent provision. The willingness of terminally
ill patients to give informed consent for killing themselves is frequently
challenged. There have been various movements in the past relating to
euthanasia some for its assistance and some for its removal.
CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE

• in favor of euthanasia, rules have been laid down taking into account people’s
interests. While this idea is contradictory to religious values, it has been seen as
beneficial to society. There’s a conflict between law and religion in that
respect. Law prevails over faith in cases of unfair and unwarranted practices.
• This is also a decision in the right direction. Many with chronic illnesses are
frequently exposed to constant pain and suffering, as well as conditions where
there is no remedy but only medicine and care that only prolongs life. Denying
them the right to die is extending their misery in a dignified manner. The court
is also correct to recognize the Right to Die with Dignity as a Constitutional
Right because it will help to alleviate the hardships of those suffering from
debilitating illnesses and they would be able to die with dignity.