TITLE-  This case is related to passive euthanasia and eventually supported the legalization of passive euthanasia.

CASE NAME-  ARUNA RAMCHANDRA SHANBAUG VS. UNION OF INDIA

CITATION-  WP (Criminal No.) 115 of 2009

COURT-Supreme Court of India

BENCH-  Justice Markandey Katju, Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra

DECIDED ON – 7th  March, 2011.

BRIEF FACTS :-

·        In this case Aruna shanbaug was a nurse she worked at king Edward memorial hospital in Mumbai, she was assaulted by a staff cleaner who wrapped a dog chain around her neck and yanked her back with it.

·        due to strangulation by the dog chain the supply of oxygen to the brain stopped and the petitioner brain got damaged and she has been permanent vegetative state.

·   She can neither see, nor can hear anything nor can she expressed herself or communicate in any manner whatsoever. It is alleged that it is not a slightest possibility of any improvement in her condition and her body lies on the bed in the KEM hospital, Mumbai like a dead body person and this has been in this position for last 36 years. The prayer of the petition is that the respondent to stop feeding Aruna and let her die peacefully.

Petitioner Argument :-

·       Petitioner Contended Aruna Shanbaug was living in a state of continuous pain and suffering due to her irreversible condition and that it would be more compassionate to allow her to pass away peacefully through active euthanasia.

·       The counsel for the petitioner contended 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.

Respondent's arguments :-

·       Ms Shanbaug was being fed and cared for by the nurse and hospital staff for as many as 36 years.

·       Now that the patient has crossed as many as 60 years of age, she might naturally succumb to death. The staff had exceptional and utmost responsibility and willingness to take care of her. Therefore, they opposed and resented the idea of Ms Shanbaug being euthanized.

·   They begged the court not to permit the act of killing since the staff had been diligently and with respect taking care of all her fundamental necessities and prerequisites.

ISSUES:-

·        Whether passive euthanasia should be allowed in specific circumstances for patients in a persistent vegetative state?

·        Whether the right to die with dignity can be considered a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.?

RATIO DECIDENDI:-

In this case supreme court gave the following reasoning for its judgement :-

1.      the doctors’ report presented Aruna was not brain dead. She could breathe without a support machine, had feelings and produced necessary stimulus. Though she is in a PVS, her condition was been stable. So, terminating her life was unjustified.

2.      the world seems to be that while active euthanasia is illegal unless there is legislation permitting it, passive euthanasia is legal even without legislation.

3.      The bench recommendation to repeal Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code.

4.      The nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Puttaswamy explained the privacy-autonomy-dignity matrix guaranteed by the Constitution of India under Article 21.

Held :- The court held that case is Disposed off.