Citation : 2011 (4) Scc 454
Jurisdiction : Criminal Original Jurisdiction
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. : 115 OF 2009
Petitioner : Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug
Respondent : Union of India
Date of Judgement : 7th March 2011
Court : The Supreme Court of India
Bench : Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra
Introduction
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2009[1] in the Supreme Court against Union of India and others. The bench was composed of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra. The case dated back to the 7th March 2011 was a landmark in criminal original jurisdiction.
Petitioner Aruna Shanbaug pleaded for relief on the issue of euthanasia and her right to die with dignity. On the question of distinguishing between active and passive euthanasia, the Supreme Court provided guidelines for the latter under exceptional circumstances, which case shaped legal discourse in Indian jurisprudence on issues related to end-of-life decisions.
Facts of the Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs Union of India
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug, a nurse at King Edward Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, was attacked by a cleaner on November 27, 1973. The attacker strangled and choked her with a dog chain so that she could not resist his rape attempt. He noticed Aruna was in her menstrual cycle, so he raped her.
The next morning, on November 28, 1973, Aruna was found unconscious, lying on the floor. There was blood all over the body. She had been discovered in this condition by a cleaner. When she was strangulated, oxygen supply to the brain gets cut off, and there is considerable damage to the cortex and even a contusion to the brain stem. The cervical cord was also injured.
In 2009, nearly three decades since the incident, a friend of Aruna approached the Supreme Court by filing a petition under Article 32[2] of the Indian Constitution. For all these years, Aruna was lying in a ‘Permanent Vegetative State, ‘ limbs immobile and fed semisolid food. She existed totally on KEM Hospital in Mumbai.
Court-Appointed Doctors’ Observations
This gave rise to a controversy between the two parties after KEM Hospital and Bombay Municipal Corporation filed their counter-petition. The Supreme Court hence took a decision to appoint a panel of three senior doctors who went to investigate and submit a report on the mental and physical health condition of Aruna Shanbaug.
The doctors examined her entire medical record and decided that her brain was not dead. She had an odd manner of grasping and responding to things. Additionally, her body language did not reflect a suicide attempt at all. The nursing staff also proved diligent in taking care of her. Euthanasia thus did not seem justified in the court’s eyes.
Issues Raised
The issues raised in Aruna Shanbaug vs Union of India are:
- Whether the withdrawal of life-sustaining systems and means for a person who is in a vegetative state (PVS) should be permissible?
- Has a person’s family or next friend the authority/right to seek the withholding or removal of life-supporting measures if the individual has not made such a request already?
- Whether Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug be declared dead?
- Should the Right to Die come within the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution?
- Whether sections 306 and 309 of IPC be constitutionally sound?
- Should euthanasia be allowed and what legal questions surround it?
Petitioner’s Arguments
A journalist and activist, Ms Pinki Virani, filed a petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution in Aruna Shanbaug vs Union of India, contending that the Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21[3] of the constitution of India extends to an element of the Right to Die with Dignity. Her contention was that people who suffer from a terminal illness or who are in a permanent vegetative state have the right to die with dignity, thereby putting an end to protracted suffering.
Ms. Virani argued in the case of Aruna Shanbaug v Union of India that the victim was unconscious, incapable of chewing food, and had been bedridden for 36 years with no prospect of improvement. For the petitioner, not feeding her would neither be an act to kill but assisting the end.
Respondent’s Arguments
The deanship of the hospital pleaded against euthanasia that the hospital staff looked after the basic needs of Aruna for almost 36 years and themselves will continue to look after the same because of willingness. The respondent was focusing the point that Aruna’s age was about 60 years and suggested that she would die naturally within the immediate future. Therefore, her life should not be ended through euthanasia only.
The hospital staff has grown emotionally attached to Aruna. There is one member who offered to take her home and care for her without payment. They opposed the legality of practicing passive euthanasia, inasmuch as it could be misused by family members, thus disturbing the social fabric of kindness and love.
The respondent argued in Aruna Shanbaug vs Union of India that each citizen of the nation has the Right to Life under Article 21, while euthanasia, by its very nature, is the act of killing a living person; thus, it is immoral and inhuman. In addition to this, they brought forth the question of consent, where it would be presented on Aruna’s behalf as she cannot give her consent for withdrawal from life support.
Judgment in Aruna Shanbaug vs Union of India
In the case of Aruna Shanbaug vs. Union of India[4], the court explained how a distinction is made between active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is that type of euthanasia in which the life is intended and positively terminated by lethal substances. This is held to be an offence under the international law, except as far as it is allowed and sanctioned by the law. In the country of India, active euthanasia is held to be a direct offense under section 302[5] [Now Section 103 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita] and section 304[6] of Indian Penal Code (IPC) [Now section 105 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita]. Furthermore, physician-assisted suicide is a crime under section 309[7] of the IPC [Now it has been removed under Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita]. On the other hand, passive euthanasia is the withdrawal of life-support systems or medical treatment. The basic difference is that “active” requires an intention to cause death, while “passive” involves not taking an action.
In Aruna Shanbaug vs Union of India, Supreme Court laid down the specific procedures and guidelines to grant passive euthanasia in the “rarest of rare circumstances,” which summarily dismissed the plea of the petitioner. It made clear that the withdrawal of life support decisions could be taken by the High Court under Article 226[8].
The Chief Justice of the High Court shall, on receipt of an application, form a bench and send the application referred to three respectable doctors before it. Proper examination of the patient is to be done and the state and family members are to be issued with a notice from the bench. Judgment from the High Court must come without undue delay.
Critical Analysis
India’s Supreme Court had in the landmark Gian Kaur[9] case rejected the right to die as one of the constituents of the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In the sense of the judgment, this is historical in that it legalizes for the first time in India passive euthanasia and attempts to bring relief to patients suffering unbearable and prolonged pain. It recognises that, after all the technological strides, it is wise to realize that, at the core of that, stand humans who should manage and maintain technology, not vice versa. The judgment emphasizes the fact that every citizen is entitled to and has a right to die with dignity.
[1] Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India & Ors., (Mar. 7, 2011), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/235821/, (last visited Nov. 19, 2024).
[2] Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this part
[3] Right to life and personal liberty
[4] Manupatra. Case analysis of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs Union of India, Manupatra Articles, https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Case-analysis-of-Aruna-Ramchandra-Shanbaug-vs-Union-of, (last visited Nov. 21, 2024).
[5] Section 302 Of IPC covers punishment for a person who commits murder with death or imprisonment for life.
[6] Section 304 Of IPC whoever commits death by a negligent act shall be punished with imprisonment or fine or both.
[7] Section 309 of IPC holds anyone liable who attempts to commit suicide shall be punished with imprisonment extending up to 1 year.
[8] Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.
[9] Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 648.
Author: Anurag is a student at Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur.
