Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v Union of India (2011)

This is where Indian law on euthanasia begins. It draws the line between active and passive euthanasia, holds the first illegal and the second permissible in certain situations, and — in the absence of legislation — lays down the procedure by which it may lawfully be done. Every end-of-life answer starts here and is then corrected by Common Cause (2018).

Aruna Shanbaug was a staff nurse at King Edward Memorial Hospital, Mumbai. On 27 November 1973 a sweeper in the hospital attacked her, wrapped a dog chain around her neck and sodomised her; the strangulation cut off the oxygen supply to her brain. She remained in the hospital for over thirty-six years in a condition described as a persistent vegetative state, fed mashed food by the nursing staff. Ms. Pinki Virani, claiming to be her next friend, petitioned under Article 32 for a direction to stop feeding her and let her die.

1. Active euthanasia is illegal in India — in the Court's treatment, a crime as murder or culpable homicide, and assisted suicide as abetment of suicide.
2. Passive euthanasia should be permitted in our country in certain situations, and the Court, following the technique by which it had earlier laid down binding directions until Parliament legislates, laid down the law meanwhile.
3. A decision to discontinue life support may be taken by the parents, spouse or close relatives, or in their absence by a next friend, or by the attending doctors — but it must be taken bona fide in the best interest of the patient.
4. Such a decision requires the approval of the High Court under Article 226 and the doctrine of parens patriae. The Chief Justice is to constitute a Bench of at least two Judges, which seeks the opinion of a committee of three reputed doctors (preferably a neurologist, a psychiatrist and a physician), issues notice to the State and to close relatives, and decides speedily and with reasons in the patient's best interest.
5. On the facts, the KEM Hospital staff, who had cared for her for decades, and not Ms. Virani, were her real next friend; they wanted her to live. The petition was dismissed.

The Court also recommended that Parliament consider deleting the offence of attempt to suicide. The Mental Healthcare Act 2017, s. 115, now presumes that a person who attempts suicide has severe stress, so that he shall not be tried and punished under that provision unless the contrary is proved, and casts a duty on the Government to provide care and rehabilitation.

Why the distinction holds. The objection to it is that letting die and killing are morally the same. The Court accepted the distinction as valid: in passive euthanasia the doctors are not actively killing anyone; they are simply not saving him. The law already respects a competent person's right to refuse treatment, so withdrawing treatment that merely prolongs dying gives effect to that right; a lethal injection, by contrast, introduces a new cause of death.

Why judicial approval. The Court feared misuse. Unscrupulous relatives may wish to inherit or otherwise grab the patient's property, and there is always that risk; approval by a High Court protects the patient, and it also protects the doctors and the family from suspicion afterwards.

Why the hospital staff were the next friend. The status of next friend follows the reality of care, not the person who comes to court — those who had nursed her for decades stood closest to her interest.

Use it to build the structure of the topic: the definitions → active versus passive → the legal position of each → who may decide → the safeguard. Then immediately add Common Cause (2018), which holds that this decision erred in reading the earlier Constitution Bench as approving the English decision and in holding that euthanasia could be made lawful only by legislation, and which replaces the High Court route with the Medical Board and Magistrate procedure.

A frequent error is to cite Aruna Shanbaug alone as current law on the need for legislation or for High Court approval. State it as the foundation, and state that it has been corrected.

What it does not decide: it does not permit active euthanasia in any circumstance; it does not create an advance directive, which came later; and, having dismissed the petition, it grants no relief on its own facts.