The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Harish Rana v. Union of India & Ors., [W.P.(C) 4927/2024, dated July 2, 2024], dismissed a petition seeking direction to constitute a Medical Board to examine the petitioner's health condition for administration of passive euthanasia. The Court held that as the petitioner was not on any life support system and was surviving without external aid, the request was legally untenable.
Facts of the Case:
The Petitioner, Harish Rana, is approximately 30 years old and was a student of Punjab University. He suffered head injuries after falling from the fourth floor of his paying guest house. Since 2013, the Petitioner has been confined to his bed due to diffuse axonal injury with Permanent Vegetative state, Quadriplegia with 100% disability.
The Petitioner's family has consulted various doctors and has been informed that there is no scope of recovery from the present situation. The Petitioner has not responded for the last 11 years and has developed deep and large bed sores which have caused further infection.
The Petitioner's family has lost all hope for his recovery and is not in a position to take care of him as they are getting old. In this situation, the Petitioner approached the Delhi High Court by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction in the nature of Certiorari to constitute a Medical Board to examine the health condition of the Petitioner for administration of passive euthanasia.
The Petitioner submitted a certificate of disability from Janakpuri Super Speciality Hospital Society, which confirmed his condition of diffuse axonal injury with Permanent Vegetative state and Quadriplegia with 100% disability.
Issue:
Whether the Court should direct the constitution of a Medical Board to examine the Petitioner's health condition for administration of passive euthanasia?
Held by the Court:
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 4927/2024 held as under:
The Court observed that the Supreme Court judgments in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) and Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011) have established clear principles regarding euthanasia in India. The Court held that while passive euthanasia is legally permissible under certain circumstances, it cannot be considered in cases where the patient is not on life support and is able to sustain themselves without external aid. The Court emphasized that these judgments have made a clear distinction between cases where a physician decides not to provide or continue treatment that could prolong life, and cases where a lethal drug is administered to relieve pain and suffering.
The Court opined that the right to refuse medical treatment, including withdrawal from life-saving devices, is available to adults with the mental capacity to make informed decisions. However, it emphasized that no one, including physicians, is permitted to cause the death of another person by administering lethal drugs, even if the intention is to relieve pain and suffering. The Court held that this principle, originally established in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996), remains a cornerstone of euthanasia law in India.
In examining the present case, the Court noted that the Petitioner was not being kept alive mechanically and was surviving without any external assistance. The Court held that as the Petitioner was not terminally ill and was capable of sustaining life without external support, it could not legally sanction the consideration of passive euthanasia. The Court observed that this crucial fact distinguished the present case from those where passive euthanasia might be considered.
The Court further held that the law of the land, as established by the Supreme Court, does not permit anyone to cause the death of another person, including a physician, by administering any lethal drug, even if the objective is to relieve the patient from pain and suffering. The Court emphasized that this prohibition applies even in cases of severe disability or permanent vegetative state, as long as the patient is not on life support.
While expressing sympathy for the Petitioner's condition and the challenges faced by his family, the Court held that it was bound by the legal framework established by the Supreme Court. The Court observed that the current law does not allow for euthanasia based solely on quality of life considerations or long-term prognosis, if the patient is able to sustain life without artificial support.
The Court concluded that it was not inclined to accept the Petitioner's request to be referred to a Medical Board for consideration of passive euthanasia. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition, affirming that the current legal framework does not permit euthanasia in cases where the patient is not on life support, regardless of their quality of life or long-term prognosis. The Court held that any change in this position would require legislative action or further evolution of jurisprudence by the Supreme Court.
_________________________________________________________
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and NLF Tax and Legal Advisory. The contents of this article are solely for informational purposes and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or a recommendation of the firm. Neither the author nor the firm and its affiliates accept any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing, and we reserve the legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission
euthanasia request denied by court
Comments