Name- Diksha Shyam
Course- B.A.LL.B ( Hons)
College- University of Allahabad
Case analysis
Aruna Ramachandra shanbaug Vs Union of India (2011)
Citation- AIR 2011 SC 1290, 2011 AIR SCW 162
Date of judgement- 7 March 2011
Bench- Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra and Justice Markandeykatju
Appellant- Ms. Pinki Virani
Respondent- Union of India and others
“Death must be so beautiful. To lie in the soft brown earth, with the grasses waving above one’s head, and listen to silence. To have no yesterday, and no to-morrow and be at peace.’’
-Oscar wilde
Introduction–
Life and death are two sides of one coin. Right to life to all citizens is guaranteed as fundamental right in Constitution of India. Article 21 is a right that include within its vast area right to education right to food right to legal assistance and many more rights. The case of Aruna Ramchandra shanbaugvs Union of India is most renowned case in history of judicial system as it changed the need for euthanasia laws in India.The on going debate whether “Right to die” is included under the ambit of “Right to life” or not and the concept of passive and active euthanasia was dealt with prime importance with Article 21.
Initially the courts does not recognise the concept of ending a person life without their consent. In the present case, The Hon’ble Supreme court of India was approached under Article 32 of the Constitution for terminating the life of the petitioner, Aruna Ramchandra shanbaug. The court cleared the concept of euthanasia and legalised passive euthanasia as right under Article 21.
Fact of the case-
• Aruna Ramchandra shanbaug , the petitioner, was a staff nurse working at king Edward Memorial Hospital in Mumbai.
• On 27 November 1973, she was attacked by one of the sweepers of the hospital. He strangulated her with a dog chain in order to (stop any movement from her side)attempt rape on her.
• On having knowledge that she is menstruating, the sweeper sodomized her.
• On 28 November 1973, one of the cleaners of the hospital found Aruna lying unconsciously on the floor draped with blood all over her body.
• The strangulation has cut off the oxygen supply to her brain which resulted in brain stem contusion, damaged cortex of brain and cervical cord. Due to this she went into permanent vegetative state.
• After 36 years to the incident, a petition was filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution by one of the close friend of Ms.Aruna in year 2009. Ms Aruna did not show any movement in past years and been living on mashed food. There is no sign of her health greeting better and she was totally reliant on the hospital.
Issues raised-
• Does “Right to life” incorporate in itself the “Right to die” i.e. Article 21?
• Does section 306 and 309 of IPC hold constitutional validity?
• Whether Aruna Ramchandra shanbaug be declared as dead?
• Does the family/ friend of the patient have right to withhold or remove the life supporting measures if the patient himself has not made such request?
• Should Euthanasia be made constitutionally valid and what legal issues surround it?
Arguments presented by petitioner–
• The counsel for petitioner contended that Right to life under Article 21 of Indian Constitution enumerates right to live a life with dignity. Therefore, it must also include right to die with dignity.
• In order to end prolong suffering and agony of individuals who suffer from terminal illness or permanent vegetative state, they must be provided with right to die with dignity.
• Ms. Aruna has shown no sign of improvement past 36 years. She was unable to chew food, unable to show any movement and was totally unaware about the surrounding. She was virtually dead and the respondent by not feeding her made no difference to her situation.
Arguments presented by Respondents-
• The counsel for responded, the hospital Dean contended that Ms. Aruna has been fed and taken care by the other nurses and staff of the hospital very carefully and withresponsibility for as many as 36 years.
• The patient will now automatically succumb to death as she has crossed 60 years of her age. The staff with all willingness and responsibilities took care of her and now they oppose the idea of Ms. Aruna being euthanized.
• The respondent submits that if passive Euthanasia is legalised it will profoundly incline towards its abuse by family members, relatives, friends and no doubt thehospital staff have taken due care of all the fundamental necessities of Ms. Aruna and willing to do same in future. So they begged court not to permit act of killing.
• One of the nurses has such emotional attachment that she was willing to look after Ms. Aruna without any renumeration. Thus, this shows the lack of emotion ofthe petitioner with the patient. Moreover, the hospital staffs were ready to provide her with all the basic needs till she needed.
• The patient is not in state to consent for her death hence it would be inhuman and immoral to take her life without considering the emotional attachment and selfless service of the hospital staffs.
Supreme court Judgement-
• The judgement delivered on 7 March 2011 ,by division bench of Supreme court, comprising Justice Markandeykatju and Justice Gyan Sudha. The bench based it’s judgement on doctor’s medical report and definition of death brain under Transplantation Human Organs Act, 1994. The court held Ms. Aruna brain is not dead, even she is not in coma as she can breathe without machines support, has feeling and produce stimulus. Therefore, terminating her life would be illegal.
• The court held that passive Euthanasia cannot be permitted for Ms.Aruna as doing so will drain all the efforts of staffs and nurses of the hospital who are taking care of her past 36 years. The rights to take decision on behalf of Ms. Aruna lies in the hands of hospital management and not Ms.Pinki Virani. The court furtherheld that life sustainable system for Ms. Aruna is mashed food and removing food means stop feeding her. Removing ventilation and food does not come under same ambit.
• In furtherance of parens patriae principle, The bench legalised passive Euthanasia for some conditions and made it complusion that the decision to take any person’s life would lie in the hand of High court in which there will be two judge bench recommended by Chief Justice of High court.
• Active euthanasia is considered illegal under section 302 and 304 IPC. The court does not legalise it as it can be misused at large end.
• The final decision of the court in this case, afterconsidering all important details, Aruna Ramchandrashanbaug was denied passive euthanasia. The court further held if in future the hospital staff feels the need, it can approach to court. The court repealed section 309 IPC.
Conclusion–
To conclude, the bench considering Euthanasia for “rarest of rare cases” made it legalised. This judgement has broadened the scope of Article 21. A peaceful and dignified death would be much better than to live artificially on life prolonged machines. In Indian context, this judgement can be hailed as progressive .
Reference-
• https://legalvidhiya.com/aruna-ramchandra-shanbaug-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-march-2011/
• https://lawcorner.in/aruna-shanbaug-vs-union-of-india-case/
• https://www.lawinsider.in/judgment/aruna-ramchandra-shanbaug-vs-union-of-india-ors
