New Delhi: Should a terminally ill person be allowed voluntary euthanasia or should s/he be asked to live in a vegetative state on a life-support system? The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday referred this issue, raised in a PIL, to a five judge Constitution Bench, saying it is essential to have a very clear enunciation of law on the matter as there have been inconsistent opinions in its previous verdicts. The apex court said its earlier verdict, of 2011, allowing passive euthanasia was delivered on a “wrong premise” and referred the case to a Constitution Bench to clear the air for the benefit of humanity as an important question of law was involved.
“In view of the inconsistent opinions rendered in the Aruna Shanbaug case, and also considering the important question of law involved which needs to be reflected in the light of social, legal, medical and constitutional perspectives, it becomes extremely important to have a clear enunciation of law. Thus, in our cogent opinion, the question of law involved requires careful consideration by a Constitution Bench of this Court for the benefit of humanity as a whole,” the court said. Aruna Shanbaug, then a junior nurse, was sexually assaulted by a ward boy at Mumbai’s King Edward Memorial Hospital in November 1973. She has since been in a vegetative state. In March 2011, the SC turned down a mercy killing petition filed on her behalf, but allowed passive euthanasia. On Tuesday, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India P. Sathasivam said the Constitution Bench will go into all aspects of the case to lay down exhaustive guidelines. “We refrain from framing any specific questions for consideration by the Constitution Bench as we invite the Bench to go into all the aspects of the matter and lay down exhaustive guidelines in this regard,” it said.
