AG agrees with apex court’s wish to solicit opinion across the board
The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notices to States and Union Territories seeking their response to a contentious PIl on passive euthanasia. The PIl filed by NGO Common Cause argued that the people who leave a “living will” to die on entering a permanent vegetative state should be given the right to exercise this choice.
The suggestion, fraught with dangers of abuse and fraud, had led the Centre to take a position that issues of this nature that necessarily involved moral, social, medical, and religious questions, was best left to Parliament to decide where opinions from different quarters could be debated and discussed at the floor of the legislature instead of a courtroom.
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, however, agreed that the issue highlighted in the PIl was a “virgin territory” as past decisions of the apex court did not decide the validity of a “living will”. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who initially was not in favour of involving States, finally accepted the court’s decision to involve States and UTs as the Bench realised that States were necessary stakeholders in any kind of order to be passed on this issue.
The Constitution Bench of Chief Justice RM lodha, Justices JS Khehar, Jasti Chelameshwar, AK Sikri and Rohington Nariman posted the matter for hearing after eight weeks. In response to the Centre’s reservation to hear the matter, the Bench observed that the court was examining validity of “living will” and the safeguards to be followed to ensure it is not abused.
Already, passive euthanasia is allowed but with strict safeguards set by the SC in its order of March 7, 2011 in the famous Aruna Shanbaug case. The AG pointed out to the court that the experience with passive euthanasia in other countries was not a pleasant one with many establishments finding it hard to roll back after having legalised euthanasia.
He also pointed out that a very “thin line of demarcation” existed between active and passive euthanasia. For instance, he said that the act of withdrawing life support is attributed to passive euthanasia. It could well be active form of euthanasia, similar to a doctor injecting a lethal injection, he argued. He further submitted to the court that attempt to suicide was a crime under the Indian law and abetting suicide was equally a punishable act.
“When abetment to suicide is an offence, can you talk of assisted suicideIJ It is also one form of suicide. How can it be juxtaposed in harmony with previous orders of this court in Gian Kaur case (decided in 1996 that held no person can end one’s life).” The Bench agreed that an issue of this nature required consideration by Parliament. “There may be chances of potential abuse,” the Bench said. “How to make it foolproof as it is a matter of life and death,” concerned the Bench, which sought assistance from States.