Common Cause v. Union of India
Vandna Singh
Kazi Nazrul University
This Case Commentary is written by Vandna Singh, a Second Year Law Student of Kazi Nazrul University
CASE DETAILS:
COURT- SUPREME COURT
BENCH- 5 BENCH JUDGES; Justices K.M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, C.T. Ravikumar
CASE TYPE- WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 215 OF 2005
DECIDED ON- March 9, 2018
PARTIES-
Appellant: Common Cause (A Regd. Society)
Respondent: Union of India and Another
CITATION- AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 1665, AIR 2018 SC (CIV) 1683
Abstract
In the 2018 case of Common Cause v. Union of India, the issue at hand was whether the right to life, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, also includes the right to die with dignity. The Apex Court of India underscored the significance of consent and patient autonomy, declaring that medical treatment should not be continued against the patient's wishes in this case. Reflecting on previous judgments in several cases including K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Apex Court of India held that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right protected under the 21st Article of the Indian Constitution. The Apex Court also held that individuals can opt for a dignified death.
Facts Of This Case
In the 2018 case of Common Cause v. Union of India, the society Common Cause filed a petition seeking to expand the "right to life" under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution to include the right to die with honor and dignity. The petitioners called for the recognition of living wills or advance medical directives, allowing terminally ill individuals the option to forgo life-sustaining treatments. Initially heard by a three-judge bench, the case was subsequently referred to a Constitution Bench due to conflicting legal rulings on the right to die.
The issue was previously addressed in P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994), where the Supreme Court decriminalized attempted suicide. They held that the 309th section of the Indian Penal Code is a violation of Articles 14 and 21 as it criminalizes it. The Court opined that the right to life implicitly included the right to die. This judgement however was later overturned in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab in 1996, where the bench ruled that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution did not extend to the right to die. Hence Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code remained valid.
This debate regained its popularity again in the year 2011 when the Apex Court permitted passive euthanasia under specific conditions, allowing individuals in a vegetative state to refuse life support in the case of Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India.
Hence, in the case of Common Cause v. Union of India, the Apex Court adjudicated whether Article 21 of the Indian Constitution also included the right to die with dignity alongside the right to live with dignity.
Issues Raised on This Case
In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), the Apex Court framed four key issues to address:
1. Difference Between Passive and Active Euthanasia: Passive euthanasia involves allowing a person to die by withholding or withdrawing medical treatments that would prolong life, while active euthanasia entails directly intervening to cause a person's death, often through administering a lethal substance.
2. Right to Die with Dignity: The right to die with dignity falls under the broader right to live with dignity, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, as recognized in landmark judgments.
3. Inclusion of Passive Euthanasia in Living Wills: Individuals in India are legally permitted to include provisions for passive euthanasia in their living wills or Advance Medical Directives, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018).Law Commission Recommendations on Euthanasia: Whether the Law Commission of India has made any recommendations regarding euthanasia as a legitimate means to relieve the suffering of terminally ill patients.
4. Right to Refuse Medical Treatment: Whether individuals have the legal right to stop medical treatment or remove life-supporting equipment, which would lead to the death of the patient.
Contention On Behalf of The Appellate
In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), the petitioner advanced a compelling argument based on the principle of individual autonomy, asserting that it is inherently connected to the right to privacy and is essential to the concept of liberty. The petitioner argued that individual autonomy bestows upon every individual the right to make decisions about their own body, including medical choices. By keeping a person alive in a persistent vegetative state through the use of advanced medical interventions, the petitioner contended that the state was infringing on the person's dignity and autonomy, prolonging their suffering without any real benefit. This prolonged existence, the petitioner argued, was an affront to the individual's right to self-determination.
The petitioner further stressed the interconnection between the right to live with dignity and the right to die with dignity. They argued that the concept of a dignified life is not limited to merely being alive but also encompasses the quality of life one leads. When medical interventions extend life without offering any meaningful improvement in the patient's condition, it may result in stripping away the individual's dignity. Thus, the petitioner asserted that the right to die with dignity should be recognized as a natural extension of the right to live with dignity, both protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Moreover, the petitioner argued that no person should be forced to accept medical treatment against their will. They contended that it is a well-established principle under common law that individuals have the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment. This right, they claimed, is an essential aspect of personal freedom and bodily autonomy. Compelling someone to undergo life-sustaining treatment when they have expressed a desire not to receive it would violate their personal liberty, autonomy, and dignity.
The petitioner concluded by affirming that individuals should be granted the power to make their own decisions about end-of-life care, especially in cases where medical treatment merely extends suffering without enhancing the quality of life. Recognizing this right, they argued, would affirm the individual's autonomy and respect their decision to die with dignity.
Contentions On Behalf of The Respondent
In response to the petition in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), the respondent, represented by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, submitted a counter affidavit to the Court. The ministry expressed significant concerns regarding the regulation of euthanasia, arguing that the necessity for euthanasia is highly contextual and varies from case to case, making it challenging to establish uniform laws or regulations.
The respondent maintained that while the 21st Article of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to live with dignity, this right should be interpreted narrowly. They maintained that the right to live with dignity encompasses fundamental necessities such as adequate food, shelter, and access to healthcare services for treating illnesses. Consequently, the Ministry argued that the right to die with dignity does not fall within the scope of the right to live with dignity.
The ministry's position highlighted a belief that the focus should remain on improving the conditions of life rather than permitting the option for individuals to choose death, as this could lead to potential misuse or abuse of euthanasia laws. They asserted that the legal framework should prioritize ensuring that all citizens have access to the essentials required for a dignified life, rather than endorsing the notion of a dignified death.
Key Elements of The Judgement
The landmark case Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) explored the intricate relationship between individual autonomy, dignity, and the right to die in India. The petition was submitted by Common Cause, a registered society, requesting the acknowledgment of the right to die with dignity as an extension of the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The petition also sought guidelines for allowing individuals to create living wills or Advance Medical Directives.
The Supreme Court identified five key issues in this case: the distinction between passive and active euthanasia, whether the right to die with dignity is encompassed within the right to live with dignity, the legality of incorporating provisions for passive euthanasia in living wills, the existence of recommendations by the Law Commission of India regarding euthanasia, and the individual's right to refuse medical treatment.
The petitioner contended that individual autonomy is a fundamental component of the right to privacy, and is essential to personal liberty. They contended that prolonging the life of a person in a persistent vegetative state through medical interventions infringes upon their dignity and autonomy. Furthermore, the petitioner emphasized the interconnection between the right to live and die with dignity, asserting that individuals should not be forced to accept unwanted medical treatment and have the common law right to refuse such treatment.
In response, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare opposed the regulation of euthanasia, arguing that the need for euthanasia varies by context, rendering uniform laws impractical. They maintained that while Article 21 guarantees the right to live with dignity, it primarily includes access to food, shelter, and healthcare, thereby excluding the right to die with dignity from this framework.
Ultimately, the Apex Court acknowledged the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right under the 21st article, broadening the interpretation of personal autonomy. The Court acknowledged the importance of individual choices in end-of-life decisions and established guidelines for implementing living wills and Advance Medical Directives. This ruling marked a significant step in affirmation emphasizing the dignity and autonomy of individuals facing terminal illnesses or prolonged suffering, highlighting the necessity for a compassionate approach to end-of-life care in India.
Conclusion
In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court recognized the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right under the 21st article of the Indian Constitution. The Court recognized that this right is interconnected with the right to live with dignity and established guidelines for the implementation of living wills and Advance Medical Directives. By permitting passive euthanasia under certain conditions, the judgment highlights the significance of individual autonomy in end-of-life decisions, advocating for a compassionate approach toward individuals suffering from terminal illnesses.
References
· https://indiankanoon.org/doc/184449972/
· https://lawessential.com/all-blogs/f/common-cause-vs-union-of-india-2018?blogcategory=Case+Comments