Somoshri Banerjee, LLM (Pursuing), Jogesh Chandra Chaudhuri Law College, Kolkata
“Death must be so beautiful. To lie in the soft brown earth, with the grasses waving above one’s head, and listen to silence. To have no yesterday, and no tomorrow. To forget time, to forgive life, to be at peace.” – Oscar Wilde
Supreme Court of India (March 7, 2011)
Citation: (2011) 4 SCC 454
Introduction:
The word ‘Euthanasia’ originates from two Greek words ‘eu’ means good and ‘thanatos’ means death. Therefore, the term ‘Euthanasia’ means ‘good death’ or ‘mercy killing’. The case of Aruna Shanbaug v Union of India2 may be considered as one of the landmark judgments on euthanasia or mercy killing. The honorable Apex Court on March 7, 2011 delivered a judgement legalizing passive euthanasia thereby concluding ‘Right to Die’ as a derivative of Article 21 i.e ‘Right to Life’. Certain conditions may arise where death becomes more comfortable than survival. This case served as a stimulus in order to alter regulations relating to euthanasia. Euthanasia may be regarded as one of the greatest predicaments faced by the entire world. The same difficulty was faced by the Apex Court in the instant case and it felt like a ship without a rudder thereby seeking guidance from the judicial pronouncements and legislations of the other countries and from the submissions put forth by the learned counsels. This case is a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and it was filed on behalf of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug(petitioner) by Ms. Pinki Virani from Mumbai who is by profession a journalist and by passion a human rights activist. MS. Pinki Virani claimed herself to be Ms. Aruna Shanbaug’s ‘next friend’. In this landmark case, the Apex Court debates upon various intricacies relating to passive euthanasia and whether it is at all practicable to legalize passive Euthanasia in India and how to prevent this right from being misused. It also lays down the circumstances in which passive euthanasia may be allowed and lays down the guidelines as to who may be deemed to be the authority to decide so.
