Aruna Shanbaug v. UOI

Aruna Ramachandra Shanbhaug v. Union of India

Citation: AIR 2011 SC 1290

Decided on: March 7, 2011

Presiding Judge (s): Justice Markandey Katju, JusticenGyan Sudha Misra

Court : Supreme Court of India

Facts of the case: Aruna Shanbaug was an Indian nurse who spent around 40 years in a vegetative state as a result of a sexual assault . The case was filed by ‘next friend’ of Ms. Aruna Shanbaug. The petition sought an order to direct the hospital to stop feeding the her and allow her to die peacefully. The Court appointed a team of three doctors to examine Ms. Shanbaug and submit a report about her physical and mental condition. This was the 1^st case to deal solely on the issue of euthanasia.

Issue: Whether withdrawal of life sustaining machines or therapies of a person in permanent vegetative state (PVS) is allowed under the Indian law?

Judgment: This was a landmark judgment on the subject of euthanasia. Though the judgment did not provide the necessary relief due to the reports submitted by the doctors indicating that Aruna Shanbaug survival depended on food intake and not machines, The Supreme Court laid down certain guidelines distinguishing active and passive euthanasia. In the judgment, the court stated that in passive euthanasia, the doctors are not actively killing anyone; they are simply not saving him. It said that causing the death of a person who is in a permanent vegetative state, with no chance of recovery, by withdrawing artificial life support is not a “positive act of killing”, which could be permitted on a case-by-case basis.

The court relied on the principle embodied in Gian Kaur which states that PVS may fall within the ambit of the “right to die” with dignity as a part of right to live with dignity, when death due to termination of natural life is certain and imminent and the process of natural death has commenced. It also referred to the judgment of House of Lords in Airedale N.H.S. Trust v. Bland that in the case of incompetent patients, if the doctors act on the basis of informed medical opinion, and withdraw the artificial life support system if it is in the patient’s best interest, the said act cannot be regarded as a crime.

However , after considering the rampant corruption in the society, the Court noted that certain guidelines ought to be followed while deciding the case of passive euthanasia :

In the case of an incompetent person who is unable to take a decision whether to withdraw life support, it is the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution that, as parens patriae, ultimately takes this decision, though, the views of the kith and kin and doctors must be given due weight.
When such an application is filed the Chief Justice of the High Court a Bench of at least two Judges should be constituted to decide the issue of granting approval after seeking the opinion of a committee of three reputed doctors to be nominated by the Bench consisting of a neurologist; a psychiatrist, and a physician.
The committee of doctors should examine and consult the record of the patient and take the views of the hospital staff and submit its report to the High Court Bench.
A notice is to be issued to the State and close relatives or the next friend, and a copy of the report of the doctor’s committee is to be supplied to them. The High Court Bench should give its verdict after hearing complying with all these guidelines Th court specified that this procedure should be followed all over India until Parliament makes legislation on this subject.

To conclude, in the Aruna Shanbaug case, the Supreme Court bench essentially held that “right to live with dignity” also includes “the right to die with dignity”. Moreover, the court has also made recommendations to repeal Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. The case essentially provided legal validity to passive euthanasia while completely dismissing active euthanasia making it possible for those suffering from terminal illness to end their life in a dignified manner.