Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug Case (2011)
– Passive Euthanasia and Article 21
Background of the Case
Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse at KEM Hospital, Mumbai, was assaulted in 1973 and suffered severe brain damage, leaving her in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) for decades.
A petition was filed seeking:
- Permission for withdrawal of life support
- Recognition of the right to die with dignity
This brought before the Court the deeply sensitive issue of euthanasia.
Core Constitutional Questions
- Does Article 21 include a right to die?
- Is euthanasia constitutionally permissible?
- If yes, under what safeguards?
Supreme Court’s Judgement
The Supreme Court delivered a nuanced and ethically sensitive ruling.
(a) Active Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Prohibited
The Court held that:
- Active euthanasia (directly causing death)
- Assisted suicide
are illegal and punishable under the Indian Penal Code.
They violate the right to life under Article 21.
(b) Passive Euthanasia Permitted with Safeguards
The Court distinguished passive euthanasia, which involves → Withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment
It held that:
- Passive euthanasia is permissible, but only:
- Under strict conditions
- With procedural safeguards
Conditions and Procedure Laid Down
The Court prescribed a multi-layered safeguard mechanism:
- Initiation of Decision → By Parents, Spouse, Close relatives, Doctors attending the patient Or, a next friend, if relatives are absent
- Mandatory High Court Approval
- Decision to withdraw life support requires → Approval from the concerned High Court
- Constitution of a Judicial Bench
- Chief Justice of the High Court must → Constitute a Bench of at least two judges
- Medical Expert Committee
- Bench must seek opinion of → Three reputed doctors
- Doctors nominated by the Bench
- Notice and Hearing
- Notice to → State, Close relatives / next friend
- Supply medical report
- Hear all parties before decision
Constitutional Significance
This judgment:
- Recognised dignity in dying, without recognising a right to die
- Balanced:
- Sanctity of life
- Autonomy and dignity
- Laid judicial groundwork for later evolution
Impact and Later Developments
- Provided legal clarity on passive euthanasia
- In Common Cause Case (2018):
- Supreme Court further evolved the law
- Recognised right to die with dignity
- Allowed living wills
- Simplified procedures
Thus, Aruna Shanbaug was the first step, not the final word.
Place in Article 21 Evolution
| Phase | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Earlier view | No right to die |
| Aruna Shanbaug (2011) | Passive euthanasia allowed |
| Common Cause (2018) | Right to die with dignity |
Summary
The Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug Case (2011) permitted passive euthanasia under strict judicial safeguards, while continuing to prohibit active euthanasia and assisted suicide, balancing human dignity with the right to life under Article 21.