All Courses
Get the App Signup / Login
Sign in Open App
Judiciary Exams Exam  >  Judiciary Exams Tests  >  OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Judiciary Exams MCQ

OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Judiciary Exams MCQ


Test Description

15 Questions MCQ Test - OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India

OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India for Judiciary Exams 2024 is part of Judiciary Exams preparation. The OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India questions and answers have been prepared according to the Judiciary Exams exam syllabus.The OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India MCQs are made for Judiciary Exams 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, notes, meanings, examples, exercises, MCQs and online tests for OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India below.
Solutions of OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India questions in English are available as part of our course for Judiciary Exams & OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India solutions in Hindi for Judiciary Exams course. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for Judiciary Exams Exam by signing up for free. Attempt OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India | 15 questions in 15 minutes | Mock test for Judiciary Exams preparation | Free important questions MCQ to study for Judiciary Exams Exam | Download free PDF with solutions
OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 1
Save

What legal action was taken in the case involving Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug?

Detailed Solution for OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 1
In the case involving Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug, a Writ Petition (Criminal) was filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. This legal action brought the matter before the Supreme Court of India for adjudication. Such a writ petition is a powerful legal tool that allows individuals to directly approach the highest court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. It enables the court to issue orders or directions to safeguard these rights. In this specific case, the writ petition served as the legal mechanism through which the issues surrounding Aruna's situation were addressed at the highest judicial level in India.
OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 2
Save

What distinguishes active euthanasia from passive euthanasia?

Detailed Solution for OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 2
Active euthanasia involves the use of lethal substances or forces to end a person's life, such as administering a lethal injection to a terminally ill patient suffering from unbearable pain. This method distinguishes it from passive euthanasia, which involves the withholding of medical treatment necessary to sustain life.
1 Crore+ students have signed up on EduRev. Have you? Download the App
OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 3
Save

What is the main distinction between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia?

Detailed Solution for OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 3
The main difference between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia lies in the actions taken. Active euthanasia involves the deliberate administration of lethal substances or forces to end a person's life, such as administering a lethal injection. On the other hand, passive euthanasia entails withholding medical treatment necessary to sustain life, like refraining from administering antibiotics or disconnecting life support devices. This crucial contrast has ethical and legal implications in end-of-life decision-making.
OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 4
Save
What legal distinction is emphasized in the case of Vikram Deo Singh Tomar v. State of Bihar regarding end-of-life decisions?
Detailed Solution for OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 4
In the case of Vikram Deo Singh Tomar v. State of Bihar, the court highlighted the right to a dignified life consistent with human dignity, underscoring the importance of quality of life until natural death. This case emphasizes the distinction between the right to die with dignity at the end of life and unnatural premature death. It stresses the significance of upholding a patient's dignity in cases of terminal illness, aligning with the broader ethical and legal discussions surrounding end-of-life care and decision-making.
OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 5
Save
What is the primary authority granted to High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution?
Detailed Solution for OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 5
High Courts, under Article 226 of the Constitution, are primarily empowered to issue directions, orders, or writs for enforcing rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution. This provision allows High Courts to ensure the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It serves as a crucial mechanism for individuals to seek justice and protection of their rights through the legal system.
OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 6
Save
According to the Supreme Court ruling discussed, what was highlighted as a crucial factor for Aruna's survival?
Detailed Solution for OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 6
The Supreme Court ruling emphasized that Aruna's ability to breathe unaided, her sensations, and responses were crucial factors indicating that she was not brain dead and that sustaining her life through a life-saving technique involving mashed food was deemed essential for her survival. This decision underscored the significance of her sensory awareness and responsiveness in determining her state of being.
OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 7
Save
According to the guidelines for passive euthanasia introduced by the court, who is entrusted with the authority to approve life termination in specific circumstances?
Detailed Solution for OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 7
In cases of passive euthanasia as per the guidelines introduced by the court, the High Court is entrusted with the authority to approve life termination in specific circumstances. This process involves a High Court Bench comprising at least two judges and a committee of three doctors to assess the case and provide their opinions before a final decision is made.
OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 8
Save
What was the court's decision regarding euthanasia for Aruna Shanbaug?
Detailed Solution for OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 8
The court denied euthanasia for Aruna Shanbaug, deeming her case unsuitable for such a measure. This decision set a precedent in the realm of euthanasia matters, outlining protocols for passive euthanasia and suggesting recommendations for end-of-life decisions. It also highlighted the significance of addressing unlegislated areas and establishing a framework for handling similar cases in the future.
OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 9
Save
What did the Supreme Court of India define as passive euthanasia in its landmark judgment?
Detailed Solution for OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 9
The Supreme Court of India defined passive euthanasia as the withholding of medical treatment to hasten a terminally ill patient's death. This distinction is crucial as it allows patients to have control over their end-of-life decisions under specific conditions outlined by medical boards. Passive euthanasia, as recognized by the Supreme Court, is not about actively taking steps to end a patient's life but rather about respecting a patient's right to refuse treatment that only prolongs suffering without offering a cure.
OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 10
Save
What type of euthanasia did the Supreme Court permit in the landmark decision on 7th March 2011?
Detailed Solution for OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 10
The Supreme Court, led by justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra, permitted passive euthanasia in their landmark decision on 7th March 2011. Passive euthanasia involves withdrawing life support from patients in Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) without administering any lethal substances. This decision set guidelines for the practice until appropriate legislation is formulated by the Parliament.
OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 11
Save
What was the outcome of the case of Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab in relation to euthanasia and assisted suicide in India?
Detailed Solution for OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 11
In the case of Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab, the Indian Supreme Court's Constitution Bench declared that euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal in India. This ruling overturned a previous decision and established that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution does not include the right to die. The court emphasized that any legalization of euthanasia would require specific legislation.
OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 12
Save
What was one of the key outcomes of the Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug case?
Detailed Solution for OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 12
One of the significant outcomes of the Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug case was the suggestion made by the Supreme Court of India to the Indian Parliament to consider removing Section 309 from the Indian Penal Code. This recommendation aimed to address crucial legal aspects related to end-of-life decisions and euthanasia practices.
OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 13
Save
In the context of the legal cases discussed, which court ruling emphasized that the "right to die" is not unnatural but rather uncommon and abnormal?
Detailed Solution for OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 13
In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Maruty Shripati Dubal, the court ruling highlighted that the "right to die" is not unnatural but rather uncommon and abnormal. This decision was significant in deeming Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code unconstitutional and asserting that the 'right to life' encompasses the 'right to die'. The court's clarification on this matter set a precedent in understanding the nuanced aspects of the right to die within the legal framework.
OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 14
Save
What legal principle was established in the case of Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland?
Detailed Solution for OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 14
In the case of Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland, the English courts permitted the withdrawal of life support systems, including food and water, and this judgment established the court's authority in determining cases fit for euthanasia. This legal precedent has significant implications for end-of-life care and decisions regarding the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment.
OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 15
Save
In the case discussed where the Supreme Court of Nevada allowed the removal of a respirator after considering state interests and patient well-being, what crucial factor differentiates it from the Aruna case?
Detailed Solution for OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India - Question 15
The key factor that distinguishes the case where the Supreme Court of Nevada permitted the removal of a respirator from the Aruna case is the level of external assistance required by the patient to breathe. This distinction is fundamental in legal and ethical considerations surrounding end-of-life care decisions. Understanding the varying degrees of medical intervention needed in different cases is essential in evaluating the complexities of such decisions and their implications on patient care and legal precedents.
Information about OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India Page
In this test you can find the Exam questions for OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India solved & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving Questions and answers for OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, EduRev gives you an ample number of Online tests for practice

Top Courses for Judiciary Exams

Download as PDF

Top Courses for Judiciary Exams

Important Questions for OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India

Find all the important questions for OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India at EduRev.Get fully prepared for OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India with EduRev's comprehensive question bank and test resources. Our platform offers a diverse range of question papers covering various topics within the OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India syllabus. Whether you need to review specific subjects or assess your overall readiness, EduRev has you covered. The questions are designed to challenge you and help you gain confidence in tackling the actual exam. Maximize your chances of success by utilizing EduRev's extensive collection of OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India resources.

OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India MCQs with Answers

Prepare for the OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India within the Judiciary Exams exam with comprehensive MCQs and answers at EduRev. Our platform offers a wide range of practice papers, question papers, and mock tests to familiarize you with the exam pattern and syllabus. Access the best books, study materials, and notes curated by toppers to enhance your preparation. Stay updated with the exam date and receive expert preparation tips and paper analysis. Visit EduRev's official website today and access a wealth of videos and coaching resources to excel in your exam.

Online Tests for OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India

Practice with a wide array of question papers that follow the exam pattern and syllabus. Our platform offers a user-friendly interface, allowing you to track your progress and identify areas for improvement. Access detailed solutions and explanations for each test to enhance your understanding of concepts. With EduRev's Online Tests, you can build confidence, boost your performance, and ace OneTime: Test: Case Brief: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India with ease. Join thousands of successful students who have benefited from our trusted online resources.
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup