Aruna Shanbaug vs Union of India [Aruna Shanbaug Case Summary] | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Supreme Court Case: Aruna Shanbaug Case

• In the Supreme Court case, Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2009 against the Union of India and others. Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra presided over the bench. The case, decided on 7th March 2011, was significant in criminal original jurisdiction.
• Aruna Shanbaug, the petitioner, sought relief related to euthanasia and the right to die with dignity. The court's decision distinguished between active and passive euthanasia, establishing guidelines for the latter under exceptional circumstances. This case played a crucial role in shaping the legal discourse on end-of-life decisions in India.

Facts of the Aruna Shanbaug Case

• Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug, a former nurse at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Mumbai, was attacked on November 27, 1973, by a hospital cleaner. He choked and strangled her with a dog chain to prevent her from resisting a rape attempt. Discovering that Aruna was menstruating, he proceeded to sexually assault her.
• The following day, November 28, 1973, Aruna was found unconscious on the floor, surrounded by blood. A cleaner found her in this state. The strangulation deprived her brain of oxygen, resulting in severe damage to the cortex, a brain stem contusion, and a cervical cord injury.
• Thirty-six years after the incident, in 2009, a friend of Aruna filed a petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. Throughout these years, Aruna remained in a 'Permanent Vegetative State,' unable to move her limbs and reliant on KEM Hospital in Mumbai for her care.

Court-Appointed Doctors' Findings

• In response to the petition, KEM Hospital and Bombay Municipal Corporation filed a counter-petition, leading to disagreements. To gain clarity, the Supreme Court appointed a team of three experienced doctors to assess Aruna Shanbaug's mental and physical condition. 
• After studying her complete medical history, the doctors concluded that while her brain wasn't dead, she displayed unique responses and understanding of situations. 
• Her body language didn't suggest a desire to end her life. The nursing staff's diligence in her care further supported the court's decision that euthanasia wasn't warranted in this case.

Issues Discussed in Aruna Shanbaug vs Union of India

The issues raised in Aruna Shanbaug vs Union of India are:

• Should it be permissible to withdraw life-sustaining systems for a person in a vegetative state (PVS)?
• Is it within the rights of a person's family or next friend to request the withholding or removal of life-supporting measures if the individual hasn't made such a request?
• Should Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug be legally declared deceased?
• Does the Right to Die align with Article 21 of the Constitution?
• Are sections 306 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code constitutionally valid?
• Should euthanasia be allowed, and what are the associated legal implications?

Petitioner's Argument

• Ms. Pinki Virani, a journalist and activist, filed a petition in the case Aruna Shanbaug vs Union of India, contending that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, guaranteeing the Right to Life, should also include the Right to Die with dignity.
• She argued that individuals who are terminally ill or in a permanent vegetative state should be allowed the choice to end their lives with dignity to relieve prolonged suffering.
• In the case of Aruna Shanbaug v Union of India, Ms. Virani highlighted that Aruna, the victim, was devoid of consciousness, unable to eat independently, and had been confined to bed for 36 years with no possibility of recovery.
• The petitioner suggested that by ceasing to provide food to Aruna, they would not be causing her death but rather enabling her to pass away peacefully.

Respondent's Arguments

• The hospital administrator opposed the idea of euthanasia in the case of Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India, citing the dedicated care provided by the hospital staff for 36 years. They expressed willingness to continue caring for Aruna and highlighted her age of 60, suggesting that her natural passing would make euthanasia unnecessary.
• The hospital staff had formed a deep emotional connection with Aruna, with one member even offering to care for her without receiving any payment. They argued against the legalization of passive euthanasia, fearing potential abuse by family members, which could erode societal values of compassion and affection.
• In the case of Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India, the respondent argued that every individual in the country possesses the Right to Life under Article 21. They viewed euthanasia as inherently immoral and inhumane, as it involves the deliberate termination of a living being's life. The issue of consent was also raised, questioning who could provide consent on behalf of Aruna, given her inability to communicate her wishes regarding life support withdrawal.

Judgment in Aruna Shanbaug vs Union of India

• Active vs. Passive Euthanasia:
  • Active euthanasia involves intentionally ending a life using substances, which is illegal in most places, including India.
  • Passive euthanasia, on the other hand, entails withholding life support or medical treatment.
• Legal Stance in India:
  • In India, active euthanasia is prohibited under Section 302(2) and Section 304(3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
  • Physician-assisted suicide is also considered an offense under Section 309(4) of the IPC.
• Guidelines for Passive Euthanasia:
  • The Supreme Court outlined strict procedures for permitting passive euthanasia in extremely rare cases.
  • Decisions on life support withdrawal can be made by the High Court under Article 226.
• Procedure for Granting Passive Euthanasia:
  • Upon receiving an application, the Chief Justice of the High Court must form a bench.
  • A committee of three reputable doctors should assess the patient thoroughly.
  • State and family members must be duly notified by the bench.
  • The High Court is responsible for making prompt decisions in such cases.

Critical Analysis

• The Supreme Court's historic Gian Kaur case ruling rejected including the right to die within Article 21's right to life in the Indian Constitution.
• This recent judgment signifies a significant change by legalizing passive euthanasia in India to alleviate the suffering of patients enduring prolonged and unbearable pain.
• It highlights the importance of human control over technology despite technological advancements, emphasizing that humans should govern and guide technology, not the other way around.
• The judgment underscores that every individual is entitled to die with dignity, a fundamental right that must be respected.

Conclusion

• In the legal case of Aruna Shanbaug, a significant event in Indian law, the Supreme Court made a clear distinction between active and passive euthanasia. Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse, remained in a permanent vegetative state for an extensive period of 36 years.
• The court allowed passive euthanasia only in the "rarest of rare circumstances." It established a specific process where the High Court, under Article 226, is empowered to make decisions regarding the withdrawal of life support. The Chief Justice assembles a panel and refers the case to a committee comprised of three medical professionals. The family and the state are informed, and a swift decision is expected.
• This ruling signified a notable change by legalizing passive euthanasia in India, particularly focused on addressing the prolonged suffering of patients.