The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 20) expressed disinclination to entertain the plea of a man for euthanasia, observing that it was not a case of “passive euthanasia” as he was not completely dependent on life-support machines.
However, the Court agreed to consider the prayer for good treatment facilities and issued notice to the Union Government to explore such options.
The petitioner, who is 30 years old, suffered head injuries after falling from the fourth floor of his paying guest house and has been confined to his bed since 2013 due to diffuse axonal injury with Permanent Vegetative state, Quadriplegia with 100% disability.
The petitioner submitted that his parents are aged and are unable to take care of him due to lack of resources and their own age-related obstructions.
The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra at the outset noted that the present case doesn’t fall under passive euthanasia but active euthanasia which is not permitted in India. The CJI said that the High Court has rightly dismissed his petition.
The CJI noted that it was not the case of the petitioner that he was on complete life support or mechanically kept alive. However, considering the extraordinary situation at hand where the aged parents are no longer able to support the petitioner, the Court issued notice in the matter. The court also sought the assistance of Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhatti and observed the possibilities of providing better treatment or care facilities to the petitioner.
“We issue notice to Union of India, we request Ms Aishwarya Bhatti to assist us. We will see if we can keep him somewhere else, it’s a very hard case,” CJI said.
During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner also urged the Court to provide medical assistance to the petitioner at a good hospital in the event that the prayer for passive euthanasia is dismissed.
The Petitioner has challenged the order of the Delhi High Court which dismissed its petition seeking to be examined by a medical board for the administration of passive euthanasia.
Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected the plea on the grounds that it was not the case of the petitioner that he was being kept alive mechanically and that he was perhaps able to sustain himself without any extra external aid. Therefore, this was not a case fit for the grant of passive euthanasia.
Before the High Court, the plea stated that the man’s family had consulted various doctors and have been informed that there was no scope of his recovery, that he had not responded for the last 11 years and had developed deep and large bed sores which have caused further infection.
The High Court noted that the man was living and no one, including a physician, is permitted to cause death of another person by administering any lethal drug, even if the objective is to relieve the patient from pain and suffering.
“The Petitioner is not on any life support system and the Petitioner is surviving without any external aid. While the Court sympathizes with the parents, as the Petitioner is not terminally ill, this Court cannot intervene and allow consideration of a prayer that is legally untenable,” the court said.
In 2018, the Supreme Court recognised the legal validity of passive euthanasia. In 2023, the Supreme Court simplified the guidelines regarding the execution of “living wills” and the exercise of passive euthanasia.
Case Details : HARISH RANA Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. SLP(C) No. 18225/2024
