ARUNA RAMCHANDRA SHANBAUG V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

 

ARUNA RAMCHANDRA SHANBAUG V.  UNION OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGES

1.     Justice Markandey Katju

2.     Justice Gyan Sudha Misra

FACTS

·       Aruna Shanbaug was born in 1948 at Haldipur, Karnataka. She came in Mumbai in 1967 to become a nurse.

·       She worked as a junior nurse at King Edward Memorial Hospital (KEM) in Mumbai.

·       On the night of November 27, 1973, she was changing her uniform after finishing her duty.

·       Sohanlal Bhartha, a sweeper at KEM grabbed her with an intention to rape her.

·       But finding that she was on her menstruation, he put a dog chain around her neck and sodomized her.

·       When he twisted the chain, it blocked the oxygen flow to her brain, throwing her into coma.

·       The next day on 28^th November 1973 at 7:45 am she was found unconscious on the floor.

·       The culprit Sohanlal was caught and convicted for assault and robbery, and not for rape or sodomy.

·       Because the doctor who examined her stayed mum about the anal rape as instructed by the hospital dean.

·       Sohanlal was sentenced for two concurrent 7year imprisonment.

·       He was released after completing the sentence but Aruna remained as a screaming vegetative body.

·       After 36 years of the incident, it was alleged that there was no possibility of any improvement in the condition and that she was entirely dependent on KEM Hospital, Mumbai.

·       A petition was filed by Pinki Virani, under Article 32 of The Indian Constitution to allow for the termination of life of Aruna Shanbaug.

·       The Supreme Court, on 17^th December 2010, while admitting the plea to end the life made by activist journalist Pinki Virani, sought a report on Shanbaug’s medical condition from the hospital in Mumbai and the Government.

·       On 24^th January 2011, a three member medical panel was established under the Supreme Court’s directive. After examining Shanbaug, the panel concluded that she met “most of the criteria of being in a permanent vegetative state”. 

 

 

ISSUES

·       When a person is in a permanent vegetative state (PVS), should withholding or withdrawal of life sustaining therapies be permissible or ‘not lawful’?

·       If patient has previously expressed a wish not to have life-sustaining treatments in case of futile care or a PVS, should his /her wishes be respected when the situation arises?

·       In case a person has not previously expressed such a wish, if his family or next of kin makes a request to withhold or withdraw futile life-sustaining treatments, should their wishes be respected?

JUDGEMENT

On 7^th of March 2011, the Humble Apex Court delivered this historic judgment, were it issued a set of broad guidelines legalizing passive euthanasia in India. These guidelines for passive euthanasia i.e. the decision to withdraw treatment, nutrition, or water establish that the decision to discontinue life support must be taken by parents, spouse, or close relative, or in the absence of them, by a “next friend” the decision requires court approval.

 In the judgment, the court declined to recognize Virani as the “next friend” of Aruna Shanbaug and instead treated the KEM hospital staff as the “next friend”, so the right to take decisions behalf of her went to the management and staff of KEM hospital. The court said that according to the doctor’s report it stated the definition of brain death under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, and Aruna”s brain was not dead and she was able to breathe without the help of machine, and had feelings and produced necessary stimulus. Terminating her life was unjustified because though she was in a PVS, but her condition was stable.

Since the KEM Hospital staff wished that Aruna Shanbaug be allowed to live, Virani’s petition to withdraw life support was declined. However the court further stipulated that the KEM hospital staff, with the approval of Bombay High Court, had the option of withdrawing life support if they changed their mind.

CONCLUSION

 This petition was gruesome case of Aruna Shanbaug and her euthanasia plea. This case clarified the issues revolving around euthanasia and also laid down guidelines with regard to passive euthanasia in India.  The court also recommended repealing Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. Shanbaug died of pneumonia on 18^th of May 2015, after being in a permanent vegetative state for nearly 42 years, law failed her, justice eluded her. But she not only gifted India with the passive euthanasia law but also started a debate on patient’s right.