LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Prakash Yedhula (Lawyer)     08 March 2011

Legal fraternity divided on passive euthanasia


The legal fraternity is divided on the issue of permission for passive euthanasia. While some hailed the SC verdict as the beginning of the “end of violation of one’s right to live with dignity”, others said no one had the right to take one’s life without a proper law on euthanasia in the country.



Former Delhi HC judge RS Sodhi asks: “India allows capital punishment and the state is allowed to take one’s life. Then why an individual who suffers extensively should not be allowed to say I have had enough?”


SC lawyer Anand Grover said, “Courts cannot decide such a sensitive issue. As per the Constitution, no one can take away anyone’s life without a procedure established by law. It means there has to be a proper statute on the issue...”


Senior SC lawyer KTS Tulsi said, “The SC ruling with in-built safeguards has made the right to live more meaningful.”


Welcoming the judgment, legal expert Subhash Kashyap said, “It is good that the apex court has laid down certain guidelines and each plea for mercy killing will be decided on a case-by-case basis. If there was a general rule, there would have been misuse.


Former judge of the Delhi HC, justice JD Kapoor expressed similar views. Expressing “grave apprehensions” about the judgment, advocate Pinky Anand said, “I cannot countenance a position where one is allowed to end one’s life. It’s an area which must be left alone. Courts cannot take on such a difficult task...”


 18 Replies

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     08 March 2011

I m also of the firm convictions that no Court has the power to take life, and life here means a child in the mother's womb from inception, except as provided under the MTPA.

a.manoharan (Advocate 94431 45884 advocatemanoharan@gmail.com)     08 March 2011

what is MTPA?

a.manoharan (Advocate 94431 45884 advocatemanoharan@gmail.com)     08 March 2011

what is MTPA

Suchitra. S (Advocate)     08 March 2011

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     08 March 2011

But I am even against the draconian Law the so  called MTPA?

zimmerzapper (student)     08 March 2011

i'm against abortion too. courts should stay out of these kind of these things

Swami Sadashiva Brahmendra Sar (Nil)     08 March 2011

I agree with apex court's decision. The court has taken in to consideration the sentiments and wishes of the people serivng the paiteint while refusing to grant permission in this case  and has framed appropriate guidelines for future cases.

Dadi Uma Mahesh (NA)     08 March 2011

I am in total disagreement with the Supreme Court Judgement, I am of the opinion that the Judges who deals with these complex Cases should be competent enough to have depth understanding anatomy and physiology of Human body and thier complex behavior instead of ruling the case on the basis sentiment of people? 

Suppose,If I file a case along with Ten Lak people saying that this country should not be ruled by Politicians above 65 yrs of age in such a scenario does Supreme Court deliver the judgement in my favour saying that the sentiment of the people is asking for the same?

mohammed qadeer.M (legal practitioner)     08 March 2011

i totally agree with you sir

Manasi Save (Legal Practioner)     08 March 2011

I am against passive euthanasia too there have been cases where the patient is in comma for several years and suddenly starts responding ; Can our law of the land deal with such cases?  God's perogative cannot be replaced by human made law 

Gulshan Tanwar (Advocate)     08 March 2011

I agree with Manasi Salve and I know personally such one person ---- cant tell his identity. As doctors have told his parents that he wont come again--- 1994 but fortunately due to the wishes of the Mother of the person and Lord Shiva's blessing and Mataji --- that person come alive in 1996 and now doctors are tight lipped about the same person and that person ----  is enjoying an IQ of 140+ in India.... :)

Sathyan A.R. ( Advocate practising tax advisor)     08 March 2011

After the Decision of Keshava Nanda Bharathis case  laying guidlness of  amendability of  constitution and basci structure rule, this the first decison laying down conditions and principles onf passive and active ethuanasia.

The SC judges have taken pain to understand the gamut of the case. The judges have also made a ruling that the decision will be law till the parliament makes any amendment to the issue governing mercy killing or suicide. The judges have also dealt with the issue of prosecuting a person for attempting to commit his suicide.They have opined that prosecuting a person who is already depressed and attempt to commit suicide is not sensible and has to be viewed sympathetically.

It is sad that Aruna Shanbag has to suffer, but under the law of land the judges could not have done better than what they did now.


Adinath@Avinash Patil (advocate)     09 March 2011




vyshnavi neelakantapillai (student)     09 March 2011

i would say euthanesia must be allowed.. when we see the case of aruna, she is completely in vegetative state and she has been in such a state for more than 38 years... the longest surviving person in a vegetative state. when a person must live with such a pain, her soul will be really happy when she dies at least let her die peacefully.. the article 21 of the constitution which deals with right to personal life and liberty. so when you have the complete right of personal life and liberty, it is implied that you have the right to die although it is not explicitly stated in the constitution. and to be frank just as the renowned jurist commented on the judgement of one of the famous judgement, where he said, a common man is attracted by the whims and fancies of judgement, but he never understands the complexities involved in the case, that would in later half affect him. yes, this is the position in the present scenario, we can say that article 21 has been one of the heart and soul of the constitution.. just think of one situation, has the said article been used effectively? well the answer to this question is always negative. the importance of this article has been given the top most priority in golaknath's case, but even then the article's purpose has not been served. i would say that use the article which is identified as one among the three golden rules of indian constitution effectively and then speak of euthanesia. well it is the right time for the indian judiciary to reconsider its stand in euthanesia... the best example to understand the state of a person who is completely in such a situation is pointed out in the movie guzarish.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register