Common Cause vs Union of India 1996





Any person who is suffering from serious illness and where there is no chance of improvement or any person who is depended on artificial life support system and unwanted painful treatment is given, such people should be given the relief from pain by doing the process of passive euthanasia. The petitioner also requested that there should be a legal recognition of living will for the patient who wanted to conduct passive euthanasia.

The main motive of this petition is to end the life of the patient with his/her consent through the process of passive euthanasia so that the patient does not suffer from any illness or disease which cannot be cured and also give relief from mental as well as physical pain. But the government of India reported that the idea of living will was unacceptable and doctors have the duty to save the life of the patient.

JUDGEMENT

In the current case ‘Common Cause vs Union of India the Supreme Court held that right to life under article 21 of Constitution of India also includes the smooth and easy process of dying of a terminally ill person or who is in a constant state without any recovery. However in an earlier case Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab the Supreme Court held that euthanasia and suicide both are illegal in India. It was also held that Article 21 of the Constitution of India only consists of the right to life and it does not include the right to die. But in other cases such as Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs Union of India it was held that passive euthanasia can be allowed in exceptional circumstances.


In the current Common Cause vs Union Of India Case the Supreme Court is in a view of making proper laws and regulations through legislature for passive euthanasia. Article 21 of the Constitution which deals with right to life and liberty must be changed and interpreted with the changing needs of the society and also right to live with dignity must also include right to die with dignity and it must fall under fundamental rights which has been mentioned in the Constitution. The Court has laid down various rules and regulations regarding the execution of living will and their authentication which can be done by the magistrate. Any person who is mentally competent enough can execute the free will of passive euthanasia. Though the medical practitioners are not allowed to end a patient’s life with any kind of drugs, medicine etc. but if a person who does not want to live with the help of any artificial support, he/she is permitted to exercise his/her legal right to die with dignity.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

M Nagaraj vs Union of India judgement

Image
Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 212 which upheld the constitutional amendments which inserted Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B), the Court had held that it is not mandatory for the State to make reservations for SC/ST in a matter of promotions. What Was Held in M Nagaraj vs UOI It also held that the Nagaraj judgment specified that the government must provide quantifiable data as regards backwardness is illegal and uncalled for due to the reason that the list only, after consideration by the President of India under arts. 341 and 342 are published and constitute SCs and STs. This case comment attempts to analyse the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M. Nagaraj v. Union of India reported in AIR 2007 SC 71, which dealt with a pertinent and extremely contentious issue of providing reservation in promotions and examines the same in the light of various principles pertaining to Constitutional law, namely right to equality and fairness, equa...
Read more

Justice ks Puttaswamy vs Union of India Citation

Image
  CASE NAME: K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD) V. UNION OF INDIA (AADHAAR JUDGEMENT) WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 494 OF 2012. PETITIONER NAME : K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD). RESPONDENT NAME : UNION OF INDIA. DECIDED ON : 24TH AUGUST 2017. CITATION : 2017 10 S.C.C. 1. This article discusses Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors, which is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that constitutes the terrain for understanding the inter-relationship between the fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution and privacy. Article 14 of the Constitution of India In November 2017, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously decided that the right to privacy is a fundamental right of every person in the country under the Indian Constitution under Articles 14, 19, and 21. The court drew on past judgments, where the judiciary had carved out a limited right to privacy from within other rights like personal liberty (Article 21) and freedom of speech and expression (...
Read more

Shayara Bano vs Union Of India Case

Image
  On 22 August 2017, the Supreme Court took a landmark decision on the constitutional validity of “Talaq-e-Biddat” popularly known as “ Triple Talaq ” which is one of the three males initiated divorce in the Muslim community, the other two being “Talaq has an” and “Talaq hasan”. As the name suggests in this form of divorce, where a Muslim man can instantly divorce his wife after repeating the word “talaq” in one sitting, without any state intervention. Here the means of communication could be in any form i.e written, oral, or even electronic, which further enhances a woman’s vulnerability in this arbitrary and unilateral divorce1. This controversial custom given that it is an intersection between gender identity and community has unsurprisingly left Muslim women prone to abuse and in a morbid state, especially given the socio-economic aspect where most of the women are financially dependent on their spouse and the added fear of this whimsical divorce leaves many cases of marital ab...
Read more