ABOUT ARUNA SHANBAUG CASE

A landmark decision in the aruna shanbaug case summary has brought attention to the issue of passive euthanasia. The petition was brought under Article 32(5) of the Constitution by the journalist and activist, who claimed to be a personal friend of the victim. The severity of the issue and the ensuing public interest in establishing the legitimacy of euthanasia led the Supreme Court to accept the petition even though it was against the law. The petition asked the respondent to stop feeding Aruna and allow her to die peacefully.

As discussed in the aruna shanbaug case summary, the Supreme Court recognized the need for a legislative framework to handle euthanasia and set the rules for the practice of passive euthanasia. The court permitted the removal of life support equipment and medical care for individuals who were in an irreversible terminal illness or had little possibility of recovery.

Aruna shanbaug case summary

Aruna shanbaug case Facts:

• The aruna shanbaug case citation is (2011) 4 SCC 454.
  
• The declaration stated that the petitioner, Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug, worked as a staff nurse at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Parel, Mumbai.
  
• On November 27, 1973, she was molested in the dark by a hospital sweeper who dragged her back and wrapped a dog chain around her neck. Rather than trying to rape her, he sodomized her when he found out she was menstruating.
  
• He immobilized her at this time by twisting the chain around her neck. The next day, a cleaner found her on the floor, unconscious and covered in blood.
  
• It was claimed that brain damage resulted from the dog chain strangulation’s stopping of the brain’s oxygen supply. Thirty-six years had passed since the tragedy.
  
• She had been living off of mashed food because she had no way to move her hands or legs. There was an allegation that she had no prospect of recovery and was completely dependent on KEM Hospital in Mumbai.
  
• In prayer, it was asked to instruct the responders to stop feeding Aruna and let her die in peace.

Aruna shanbaug case Issues:

• Could non-voluntary passive euthanasia be performed on a person who is incapable of giving consent?
  
• Is suicide regarded as a crime under Indian Penal Code Section 309?

Arguments by the Side of the Petitioner:

• Author and activist Ms. Pinki Virani filed a lawsuit in Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India, citing Article 32 of the Indian Constitution and contending that the Right to Die with Dignity is a component of the Right to Life guaranteed by Article 21.
  
• She said that in order to provide them with prolonged pain relief, people with terminal illnesses or those in chronic vegetative states should have the choice to end their lives with dignity.
  
• According to Ms. Virani, Aruna, the victim, was unable to digest her meals, was unconscious, and had been bedridden for 36 years with no possibility of recovery. The petitioner argues that rather than killing Aruna, depriving her of food will let her die in peace.

Arguments by the Side of the Respondent:

• The hospital dean opposed euthanasia, claiming that Aruna’s fundamental requirements had been met by medical professionals for nearly 36 years and that they would continue to do so willingly. The response highlighted Aruna’s advanced age (she is sixty years old) and suggested that euthanasia would not be required because she would naturally die in the future.
  
• Aruna had developed a close emotional bond with the hospital staff, to the point that one worker was willing to give her unpaid care. They argued against allowing passive euthanasia because they believed family members would abuse it, undermining love and compassion in society.
  
• The respondent said that because euthanasia entails taking the life of a living being, it is immoral and inhumane, and that every Indian citizen is entitled to the right to life in accordance with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. They additionally brought up the topic of consent, inquiring as to who would approve Aruna’s removal from life support in light of her inability to give consent.

Aruna shanbaug case Judgment:

• The decision in the Aruna Shanbaug case was made on March 7, 2011. The bench was composed of Justice Gyan Sudha Misra and Justice Markandey Katju.
  
• Since there isn’t a strong enough reason to allow active euthanasia in this specific case, it is probably better for the petitioner to be allowed to live in this state until she passes away given her condition.
  
• When deciding whether or not to take away life support from someone who is incapable of giving their own consent, the court alone, known as “Parens Patriae”, will consider the risk of abuse. Family members’ perspectives would also be quite important in this situation.
  
• However, the Supreme Court ruled that in the most exceptional and rare of situations, passive euthanasia may be allowed with the right permission from the patient’s family and medical experts.
  
• Courts established an approval procedure that was permitted by Article 226 of the Indian Constitution; the Supreme Court said that it should be utilized cautiously and should not be used to subvert Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf