COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2014] 3 S.C.R. 289 · Decided: 25-02-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 3 S.C.R. 289 
COMMON CAUSE (A REGO. SOCIETY) 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 215 of 2005) 
FEBRUARY 25, 2014 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI., RANJAN GOGOi AND 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: 
Art. 21 rlw Art. 32 - Prayer to declare 'right to die with 
dignity' a fundamental right and to make provision for "living 
A 
B 
c 
will and Attorney authorization" to exercise right to refuse cruel 
and unwarranted medical treatment to artificially prolong the 
natural life of terminally ill persons in the event of their going 0 
into permanent vegetative state - Matter referred to 
Constitution Bench. 
Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab 1996 (3) _SCR 697 ={1996) 
2 S_CC 648; Aruna Ramchand13 _Shanbaug vs. Union of India 
2011 (4) SCR 1057 = (2011) 4 SCC 454 and Parmanand 
E 
Katara vs. Union of India 1989 (3) SCR 997 = (1989) 4 SCC 
286 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
1996 (3) SCR 697 
2011 (4) SCR 1057 
1989 (3) SCR 997 
referred to 
referred to 
referred to 
para 3 
para 8 
para 6 
F 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Under Article 32 of the 
G 
Constitution of India. 
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 215 of 2005. 
289 
H 
A 
B 
290 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
. [2014] 3 S.C.R. 
Sidharth Luthra, ASG, R.P. Bhatt, V.A. Mohta, Prashant 
Bhushan, Rohit Kumar Singh, Pranav Sachdeva, Sunita 
Sharma, Pranav Aggarwal, Sushma Suri, Supriya Juneja, 
Aniruddha P. Mayee, Nilakanth, Charudatta Mahindrakar, 
Praveen Khattar, B. Vijay Kumar for the appearing parties. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
P. SATHASIVAM, CJI. 1. This writ petition, under Article 
32 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by Common 
Cause-a Society registered under the Societies Registration 
C Act, 1860 engaged in taking up various common problems of 
the people for securing redressal, praying for declaring 'right 
to die with dignity' as a fundamental right within the fold of 'right 
to live with dignity' guaranteed under Article 21 of the 
Constitution and to issue direction to the respondent, to adopt 
D suitable procedures, in consultation with the State 
Governments wherever necessary, to ensure that the persons 
with deteriorated health or terminally ill s.t.iould be able to 
execute a document, viz., 'my living will & Attorney 
authorization' which can be presented to hospital for 
E 
appropriate action in the event of the executant being admitted 
to the hospital with serious illness which may threaten 
termination of life of the executant or in the alternative, issue 
appropriate guidelines to this effect and to appoint an Expert 
Committee consisting of doctors, social scientists and lawyers 
F 
to study into the aspect of issuing guidelines regarding 
execution of 'Living Wills'. 
2. On 19.06.2002 and 25.06.2002, the petitioner-Society 
had written letters to the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company 
Affairs and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare with a 
G similar prayer as in this writ petition. Concurrently, the petitioner 
also wrote letters to the State Governments in this regard, as 
hospitals come within the jurisdiction of both the State 
Governments and the Union of India. 
H 
3. In the above said communication, the petitioner had 
COMMON CAUSE (A REGO. SOCIETY) v. UNION, OF 291 
INDIA [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.] 
emphasized the need for a law to be passed which would 
A 
authorize the execution of the 'Living Will & Attorney 
Authorization'. Further, in the second letter, the petitioner- . 
Society particularly relied on the decision of this Court in Gian 
Kaur vs. State of Punjab (1996) 2 SCC 648 to support its 
request. Since no reply has been received, the petitioner-
B 
Society has preferred this writ petition. 
4. Heard Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the 
petitioner-Society, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Additional 
Solicitor General for the Union of India and Mr. V.A. Mohta, 
C 
learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Praveen Khattar, learned 
counsel for the intervenors. 
Contentions: 
5. According to the petitioner-Society, the citizens who are 
0 
suffering from chronic diseases and/or are at the end of their 
natural life span and are likely to go into a state of terminal 
illness or permanent vegetative state are deprived of their rights 
to refuse cruel and unwanted medical treatment like feeding 
through hydration tubes, being kept on ventilator and other life 
E 
supporting machines, in order to artificially prolong their natural 
life span. Thus, the denial of this right leads to extension 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.