Common Cause V. UOI Summary

COMMON CAUSE Vs. UNION OF INDIA(UOI)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CASE ON ARTICLE 21 OF CONSTITUTION FOR RIGHT TO DIE WITH DIGNITY

Facts of the case :

The petition was preferred under article 32 of the constitution for declaring 'right to die' as a fundamental right within the fold of 'right to life and personal liberty' under article 21 of the constitution. It was requested that the directions be issued to the government for making the guidelines for 'My Living Will and Attorney Authorisation' can be produced before the hospital and required authorities. 

JUDGEMENT

The court referred the judgement of Gian Kaur case in which it was held out that right of a die man to die with dignity and when there is no hope of recovery, then accelerating the process of dying and thus ending the sufferings is covered under right to life with dignity. The bench in Aruna Shanbaug has erred in taking that the judgement in Gian Kaur had held that passive euthanasia could be made lawful only by legislation. The law commission in its 241st report recognise passive euthanasia but no law has been made in this regard. 
The court further observed that a all the adults who can give the consent have the right to self determination and autonomy. A person can refuse to a medic treatment or can opt for another treatment, whatever he wishes to even if it poses risk to the life of the person. Principal of necessity or emergency principles can only be applies in the absence of pre will of the person. Advance directives by a person need to be followed to smoothen the process of dying  and to protect the right of a person to live with dignity and die with dignity. 
In the absence of advanced directives, when the situational measures of passive euthanasia becomes applicable, then the Interest of the individual should given priority than the Interest of the state. 
The court in this laid down the procedure for advance directives and guidelines in case of passive euthanasia in both the cases under article 142 of the constitution and law laid down in Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan. 
These guidelines are applicable untill the parliament enacts the legislation in this regard. 



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Kailash Wati V. Ajodhia Parkash case summary

Image
KAILASH WATI Vs. AJODHIA PARKASH PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT  19 NOV 1976 CASE UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. Question before the court Whether the hindu marriage act sanctify or recognise (what may be called as) week end marriage as of a right at the unilateral desire of the wife. Facts of the case The appellant smt. Kailash Wati was married to the respondent Ajodhia Parkash in June 1964. Both of them before marriage were posted as village level teachers. Wife at her parental village of Bilga and husband at kot Ise Khan. After marriage the wife was transferred to her husband's station and they lived together in the matrimonial home for 8-9 months. Contention of the parties Husband : The allegation of the husband is that the wife has got herself transferred back to her parental village and ever since has been residing there with her parents against his wish. Therefore he filled an application for the restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. 
Read more

Savitri Pandey V. Prem Chandra Pandey summary

Image
SAVITRI PANDEY Vs. PREM CHANDRA PANDEY SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  2002 CASE FOR SECTION 13 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT ON THE GROUNDS OF CRUELTY AND DESERTION Facts of the case :  The appellant - wife approached the court for the dissolution of marriage under section 13 of HMA alleging cruelty and desertion against the husband.  Contention of the parties :  Petitioner : Petitioner plead for the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by the husband. Respondent  : Respondent - husband argued that no acts of cruelty were performed to the wife and the petitioner is trying to take advantage of her own wrong.  JUDGEMENT :  The trial court passed the decree in favour of the wife. The court observed that although nothing can establish cruelty against husband, desertion by husband provides sufficient grounds for dissolution of marriage.    High court opined that there was nothing to prove cruelty as against husband and further there was also nothing to prove the desertion by th
Read more

Swaraj Garg V. K. M. Garg summary

Image
SWARAJ GARG  Vs. K.M. GARG DELHI HIGH COURT MARCH 7, 1978 . CASE UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT Question before the court : Where will be the matrimonial home located after the marriage when both the parties are gainfully employed and there does not exist any agreement either implied or written before the marriage.  Facts of the case : The wife Swaraj - petitioner lived in her village, Sunam, from 1956 and techer at the the school. She was the head mistress at government high school in 1969. She got married to the respondent in 1964. The husband was not having a satisfactory job and earn only 500 p/m in Delhi where he resides. She came to live with her husband for some time and then grt back to her village and continue living there. The Husband therefore filed the petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.  Contention of the parties :  Petitioner  : The petitioner argued that respondent's condition is not satisfactory that he can maint
Read more