New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to all states seeking their views on the ticklish question of allowing passive euthanasia – withdrawal of life support — in the case of a terminally ill person who is in vegetable state with no hope of revival.
The question before the states is whether or not a terminally ill person can execute a living will stating that life support system be withdrawn if he or she reaches a vegetative state with no hope of revival.
The notice is returnable in eight weeks.
However, the Centre strongly opposed the petition demanding legalizing of passive euthanasia saying it is a form of suicide which cannot be allowed in the country.
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, who represents the Union Government, also contended that the issue should be debated and decided by legislature and that it is not a matter to be adjudicated by the court.
“We do not accept passive euthanasia. It is one form of suicide and suicide is an offence,” he said, adding, “It is a matter for legislature to decide.” He also pointed out that there is no clear distinction between active and passive euthanasia.
The five-judge Constitution bench, during the hearing, also raised the question about safeguards that need to be put in place to prevent the misuse of legal euthanasia.
The bench also said that the question of passive euthanasia needs a comprehensive examination as there was no authoritative judicial pronouncement on the issue.
The court also asked the petitioner to cite the least painful way to bring life to an end, as there is no unanimity across the world on the issue.
The Constitution Bench was set up after a three-judge bench had on February 25 referred the case to a larger bench saying it was extremely important to have a clear enunciation of law in view of the inconsistencies in its previous judgment.
“In view of the inconsistent opinions rendered in the Aruna Shanbaug case and also considering the important question of law involved, which needs to be reflected in the light of social, legal, medical and constitutional perspective, it becomes extremely important to have a clear enunciation of the law. Thus, in our cogent opinion, the question of law involved requires careful consideration by a Constitution Bench of this court for the benefit of humanity as a whole,” the court had said.
In the Aruna Shanbaug case, the court had said that right to live with dignity will be inclusive of the right to die with dignity but the bench could not arrive at a conclusion on validity of euthanasia.
