Menu

COMMON CAUSE V/S UNION OF INDIA

Case Comment, Publications
PETITIONERCommon Cause (A Registered Society)
RESPONDENTUnion of India
COURTThe Supreme Court of India
BENCHChief Justice A.K. SikriJustice Dipak MishraJustice A.M. KhanwilkarJustice D.Y. ChandrachudJustice Ashok Bhushan
CASE NO.WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 215 OF 2005
STATUTE REFERENCEConstitution of IndiaIndian Penal Code
DECIDED ON9th May, 2018

FACTS

  1. In the year 2005, a Public Interest Litigation was filed by a registered society named ‘Common Cause’. This PIL was Filed in the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.
  2. Prior to filing the PIL a letter was written by Common Cause to the Ministry of Law and Justice & Ministry of Health and Family Welfare but they received no response from the government.
  3. The intention of writing a letter to the government and then filing a PIL regarding the same was to demand inclusion of Right to Die with dignity under Article 21 of Indian Constitution along with pre-existing fundamental right of Right to Life under the same article. They also requested the court to issue the guidelines & policies to help people with terminal illness.
  4. The petitioners claimed that ‘Right to Die with dignity’ is also included under ‘Right to Life’. The petitioners filed a case that in such a modern time when the technology has developed so much that these technologies are used in such an inhumane way in the medical sector that they are used to prolong the natural lifespan of the patient.
  5. As the patients in their serious medical conditions are unconscious of their condition so they are treated by such means on the basis of the decision taken by their medical consultant or their family members. 
  6. Basically, if we look at this case in simple words, the case is about demanding legalisation of the choice of living will in the cases of terminal illness. In this case, the petitioners demand that by legalizing this ‘Right of Living Will’ the sufferings that are caused to the patient & the family members in both physical and psychological form can be reduced as the patient will be given a right to choose the way in which the patient wishes to die.             

ISSUES RAISED

  1. Whether Right to Die with dignity is also included in Right to Live which is mentioned in Article-21 of the Indian Constitution?
  2. Whether Passive Euthanasia be permitted within the living will of the patient?
  3. Whether an individual can refuse to take the medical including the life saving equipment?
  4. Whether active & passive euthanasia differ from each other?  

CONTENTION

  1.  ARGUMENTS BY PETITIONER
  1. The petitioner argues that every individual has their right to choose whether they are willing to continue to live or not, in case of those illnesses where there is no hope to recover & the patient might die soon .
  2. They further argue that in cases of incurable diseases it is better to rather allow the person to choose to die with dignity and not make the patient suffer & be in persistent pain due to medications.
  3. In such cases, not only the patient but their family members also suffer and go through physical, mental, financial & emotional distress. In such cases, the majority of the cases which are filed are mercy petitions.
  4. In this modern times of technological development the equipments along with the drugs & medicines which are used to prolong a person’s life due to which they have to go through pain & then, die in vegetative condition which violates the right to die with dignity. If passive euthanasia is legalised then, the patients can renounce the use of these prolonged methods of treatment during their illness giving a way to use passive euthanasia.
  5. Euthanasia will also give a way for organ donation by the patients to those patients who are in need of organ transplant due to organ failure. This will also provide an opportunity to support organ donation.        
  1.  ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENT
  1. Respondent argues that Right to life is included in Article – 21 of TheIndian Constitution as it is a natural right as it comes to a person along with their birth but Right to Die or legalizing passive euthanasia is irrelevant to any of the fundamental rights as passive euthanasia is a kind of suicide.  It is a way of unnatural death that is considered as a suicide.
  2. Respondent also argues that the primary function of the government is to protect the rights of the citizens & to keep them safe. But including the Right to Die as one of the fundamental rights will violate the basic right along with violation in the duties of the State.
  3. Respondent further argues that it is not constant & necessary that all the deaths are painful.
  4. Euthanasia whether passive or active is considered as a way of commiting suicidewhich is also termed as Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) & leaglizing this practice along with the involvement of a medical attendant not only is against the Hypocrytic Oath (set of professional and ethical commitments traditionally made by those entering the practice of medicine) of the physician but also against the existence of human life.
  5. The usage of Euthanasia will restrict the evolution in the field of medicine.
  6. This will also reduce & question the duty and capabilities of a physician towards their patient in curing and saving their patient’s life.

RATIONALE

  • This 538-page long judgement was authored by the Chief Justice of India Dipak Mishra by the majority opinion. The judgement stated that along with the Right to Live with dignity the person also has a Right to Die with dignity as this is a part of life & personal liberty so it is part of Article-21 of our Indian Constitution. So, removal of a life-supporting system from a terminally ill patient through their treatment is valid on the condition that they voluntarily agree to it or create a living will. The court laid down certain advanced directions and guidelines regarding the procedure & effect of Passive Euthanasia. The court declared itself as Parens Patriae (parent of the nation) and so it can give a final decision and intervene whenever necessary and for the best of the patients & act as a guardian.
  • In their judgement Justice Mishra also stated that a person who has attained the age of majority (18 years) & who is of sound mind who is going through any serious & vegetative medical condition must be given an authority to choose whether they want to continue their treatment & usage of the life supporting system along with medication or not. The patient must be fully aware of their condition while making such decision otherwise the decision will be declared as void under the following circumstances:
  1. Minor (below 18 years of age)
  2. Undue Influence
  3. Information was false or untrue
  4. Conditions were either confusing or unclear            

The Hon’ble court also referred to the international judgement by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) named Pretty v/s The United Kingdom (2002) in which the court concluded that the person can get rid of something they sense as an intolerant & painful end to their existence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its judgement further stated that Right to Die is just an extension of the Right to Privacy which is a Fundamental Right connected to Article-21 (Right to Life & Personal Liberty) of the Indian Constitution. The court also differentiated between Active & Passive Euthanasia as:

Active EuthanasiaPassive Euthanasia
In active euthanasia, it is necessary to conduct open & instant action to conclude the person’s life.In passive euthanasia, the person who is suffering his/her life supporting system is detached.

DEFECTS OF LAW

The concept of judgement regarding legalising passive euthanasia is debatable & comes with a series of concerns related to religion, morals, ethics, law and society. By the means of this judgement, the court legalised passive euthanasia along with the guidelines, but still this law holds some loopholes with it which could become a tragedy for the society:

  • Life is a divine gift of God given to us & it is our responsibility to protect our life instead of allowing any other person to end our life. 
  • By allowing passive euthanasia we are showing that the medical ethics are failing. As the doctor, who is known to have cure for all diseases & called a healer. Still the doctor has to advise their patients that as their patients’ disease is incurable so they can adopt passive euthanasia also so that they can end their life & get rid of their pain & sufferings.
  • By adopting passive euthanasia indirectly the right to choose between the patient’s life or death is indirectly handed over to their guardians or caretakers or doctor as due to illness the patient is mentally disabled to make an informed decision about their life & death. So in actuality, this right to make the decision is not in the hands of the person (patient).
  • By adopting this practice, we are limiting & interrupting the way of evolution of our medical advancements along with discouraging the studies of development in the medical field. We are disabling the discovery & inventions in relation to finding the cure of such incurable & unique illness and diseases.         

INFERENCE

Although this concept of passive euthanasia is quite controversial & might be against the morals, values & ethics of the society but denying the patients their right to die in a dignified manner makes them suffer more. Hence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court legalises declaring the Right to Die with Dignity as a Fundamental Right. The judgement given by the 5-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 9th March,2018 states in its 538-page long judgement that an individual has the right to dignified death.

The court legalized passive euthanasia also known as Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS). The bench legalised this practice only for those patients who are going through severe illness, intolerable pain & there is no sign or hope of recovery in them. The bench further stated that at the time of judgement given in the case of Gian Kaur the court wasn’t aware of the concept of passive euthanasia. The Hon’ble court clearly distinguishes between the concept of active & passive euthanasia. According to this method, passive euthanasia patients can opt to remove the life saving treatment under the observance of the physician. The sufferings in such cases are not limited to only the patient but involve their families.  However, practice of passive euthanasia will eventually reduce the pain & the process will be comparatively speedy and hassle-free. 

Although the concept of the judgement given was against the religious beliefs but it will eventually reduce the pain of the patient. The judgement passed in this case is against the religious beliefs which might be a reason for conflicts but in such situations law prevails over the religion.   

Name- Shubhangi Jain
College – Amity University, Gurugram (Manesar)

BIBLIOGRAPHY