SC reserves verdict on passive euthanasia

The court, in March 2011, had noted that there was no statutory provision to allow any form of euthanasia.

The government on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that a form of euthanasia was already permitted under law and that the court’s 2011 judgment in the Aruna Shanbaug case failed to consider this existing regulation that allowed withdrawing life support system from a person in permanently vegetative state.

The court, in March 2011, had noted that there was no statutory provision to allow any form of euthanasia and hence it laid down certain stringent guidelines to allow “passive euthanasia” while casting the responsibility on High Courts to take decisions on pleas for mercy killings.

However, Additional Solicitor General Sidharth Luthra, who appeared for the Ministry of Health, submitted before a Bench that regulation 6.7 of the Code of Ethics Regulations, 2002, allowed withdrawing life support system by a team of doctors.

“This regulation specifies situations where a team of doctors may decide to withdraw the life support system. So it will not be right to say there is no law to regulate passive euthanasia in this country,” argued Luthra, who was arguing against a petition by NGO Common Cause.

The ASG, however, pointed out that the PIL cannot open this issue again since a constitution bench judgement had way back in 1996 already held that the right to life under Article 21 did not include the right to die.

He added that if the apex court wanted to revisit its decision of 1996 by interpreting Article 21, only a five-judge Bench could do it. The bench, after hearing Luthra, reserved its verdict on the subject.

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram