Introduction:

Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011) is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that delved into the complex and sensitive issue of euthanasia, specifically passive euthanasia, and its permissibility under Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution of India. The case was initiated by a petition seeking the withdrawal of life support for Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse who had been in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) for nearly four decades following a brutal sexual assault.

Issues:

The primary legal issues before the Supreme Court were:

1. Whether the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the Right to Die with dignity?

2. Whether passive euthanasia should be legalized in India, and if so, under what circumstances and procedures?

3. Who should be the decision-making authority regarding the withdrawal of life support for a person in a persistent vegetative state who is incapable of making decisions?

Judgment:

The Supreme Court, while rejecting the specific plea for euthanasia in Aruna Shanbaug's case based on the medical assessment that she was not brain dead and had some awareness, delivered a significant judgment legalizing passive euthanasia in India under strict guidelines. The key aspects of the judgment were:

• • Right to Die with Dignity: The Court recognized that the Right to Life under Article 21 includes the Right to Die with dignity.
• • Distinction between Active and Passive Euthanasia: The Court clearly distinguished between active euthanasia (actively ending life, which remains illegal) and passive euthanasia (withdrawing life support or medical treatment, which was permitted under specific circumstances).
• • Guidelines for Passive Euthanasia: The Court laid down detailed guidelines for allowing passive euthanasia, emphasizing that the decision to withdraw life support should be made by the High Court. The process involved:
• o A petition by a close relative or friend.
• o Examination of the patient by a panel of doctors.
• o A decision by the High Court after considering the medical report and the views of the State.
• • Best Interest Principle: The Court emphasized the "best interest" principle for patients unable to make their own decisions.
• • Role of the High Court: The High Court was designated as the ultimate decision-making authority to grant permission for passive euthanasia.

Analysis:

The Aruna Shanbaug judgment was a watershed moment in Indian legal history, balancing the sanctity of life with the right to die with dignity. The Court's recognition of passive euthanasia as a facet of Article 21 acknowledged the prolonged suffering and indignity faced by individuals in irreversible vegetative states.

The detailed guidelines laid down by the Court aimed to prevent misuse and ensure a fair and just process for making such life-altering decisions. By vesting the authority in the High Courts, the judgment provided a layer of judicial oversight and scrutiny, safeguarding against arbitrary decisions.

The Court's distinction between active and passive euthanasia was crucial, maintaining the prohibition on actively taking a life while acknowledging the ethical considerations of prolonging life without any hope of recovery and with immense suffering.However, the judgment also faced some criticism. The process of approaching the High Court was seen as cumbersome and potentially time-consuming, which might not be ideal for families already dealing with immense emotional distress. The definition of "close relative or friend" also left room for interpretation.

Conclusion:

Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India was a landmark case that, for the first time in India, legally recognized passive euthanasia and laid down a framework for its implementation. The judgment underscored the evolving understanding of the Right to Life under the Constitution, encompassing the right to die with dignity. While the specific plea for Aruna Shanbaug was rejected, the guidelines established by the Supreme Court provided a significant legal and ethical framework for end-of-life decisions in cases of persistent vegetative states. This case paved the way for further legal developments and discussions on the right to die with dignity in India, eventually leading to the enactment of legislation like the guidelines on Living Wills.