Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs Union of India
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs Union of India
Author : Ishita Arora
Citation: 2011 (4) SCC 454
Bench: Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha Misra.
Introduction
‘Right to life’ is a guaranteed fundamental right under the constitution of India. However, there has been a lot of debate in the country whether right to life includes right to die or not. The concept of Euthanasia has also received a mixed response in the country.
In this case, a writ petition was filed under Article – 32 of the Constitution of India by the next friend of Aruna Shanbaug (petitioner), to allow for termination of life of the petitioner who was in a permanent vegetative state. The present case is a landmark case as this case clarified the doubts related to euthanasia and also laid down guidelines legalizing passive euthanasia in certain exceptional circumstances. The Supreme Court held that the right to withdraw treatment, nutrition or to terminate life of a person is with that person’s parents, spouse, or other closed one, or in the absence of all of them this right is with a ‘near friend’. However, this decision needs to be approved by the concerned High Court.
Facts of the case
The facts of the case state that petitioner was a nurse in one of the hospital in Mumbai. On November 27, 1973 the petitioner was attacked by a sweeper of the hospital who wrapped a dog chain around her neck and yanked her back with it. He attempted to rape her when he found out that she was menstruating, he sodomized her.
He tried to immobilize her during this act and thus he twisted the chain around her neck. The next day, the cleaner of the hospital found her lying on the floor with blood all over. Then she was taken to the hospital and the doctors claim that because of strangulation by the dog chain the brain got damaged due to less supply of oxygen to the brain.
Even after thirty six years from that incident, she is living on mashed food and is partially paralyzed. It is claimed that there is no chance of any improvement in her situation. She was fully dependent on the hospital at Mumbai. The petitioner has filed this petition to order the respondents to and terminate her life by stop feeding Aruna, thus let her die with dignity and peacefully.
Issues and fact of law
- Whether withholding or withdrawal of life sustaining therapies of a person, who is in a permanent vegetative state is allowed or not?
- Whether the request to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatments of family or next friend be respected?
Judgement
The Supreme Court held that Aruna Shanbaug cannot be given euthanasia. The court observed that Aruna was not brain dead on the basis of doctors’ report and the definition of brain death given under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994. She could breathe on her own, she had feelings and produced necessary stimulus. Her condition was also stable. Hence, terminating her life was unjustified.
Also, in this case it was held that Pinky Virani (who claimed to be the next friend of the petitioner) is not the next friend of Aruna. The nurses and hospital staff were the near friend of Aruna who were taking care of her. Allowing of euthanasia to Aruna would mean putting in vain all the efforts of the hospital staff over the years.
The Court also held that if at any point, the staff of the hospital felt a need for the same, they can approach the High Court following the procedure which is prescribed.
