LexCOMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 1137 1137 COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA (Miscellaneous Application No. 1699 of 2019) In (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 215 of 2005) JANUARY 24, 2023 [K.M. JOSEPH, AJAY RASTOGI, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, HRISHIKESH ROY AND C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.] Constitution of India – Right of the person to die with dignity – Advanced directives – Application seeking clarification of the judgment in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India (2018) 5 SCC 1: [2018] 6 SCR 1 – In the said writ petition, the Court was concerned with the question as to whether even in the absence of Advance Directives, when a person is faced with a medical condition with no hope of recovery and is continued on life support system/medicines, support system should be withdrawn – Thereafter, the Court proceeded to lay down the directives – Now, application filed seeking clarifications – The reason for approaching the Court again is the actual working of the directions, insurmountable obstacles are being posed – Keeping in view the concerns of the parties, the directions contained in paragraphs 198 to 199 are modified/ deleted – Miscellaneous application disposed of. CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Miscellaneous Application No.1699 of 2019 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.215 of 2005. Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Adv., Dr. Dhvani Mehta, Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, Ms. Shreya Shrivastava, Advs. for the Petitioner. K. M. Nataraj, A.S.G., Gurmeet Singh Makker, Mohd. Akhil, Adit Khorana, Shailesh Madiyal, Udai Khanna, Vinayak Sharma, Anirudh Bhat, Sanjay M Nuli, Nakul Chengappa K.K., Chitransh Sharma, Anuj S. Udupa, Dr. R. R. Kishore, Advs. for the Respondent. The Order of the Court was passed by K. M. JOSEPH, J. (1) This is an application filed by Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine seeking clarification of the judgment reported in Common Cause [2023] 1 S.C.R. 1137 A B C D E F G H 1138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R. (A Registered Society) v. Union of India and Another (2018) 5 SCC 1. (2) A Constitution Bench came to be constituted on the basis of a Reference made to it by a Bench of three learned Judges. In the backdrop of certain earlier decisions of this Court, in particular, this Court was engaged with the question as to whether the Court should issue suitable directions or set in place norms to provide for what is described as Advance Directives. This Court also was concerned with the question as to whether even in the absence of Advance Directives, when a person is faced with a medical condition with no hope of recovery and is continued on life support system/medicines, life support system should be withdrawn. The Court went on to dwell on the right of a person to die with dignity. Thereafter, this Court has proceeded to lay down the directives as follows: “198. In our considered opinion, Advance Medical Directive would serve as a fruitful means to facilitate the fructification of the sacrosanct right to life with dignity. The said directive, we think, will dispel many a doubt at the relevant time of need during the course of treatment of the patient. That apart, it will strengthen the mind of the treating doctors as they will be in a position to ensure, after being satisfied, that they are acting in a lawful manner. We may hasten to add that Advance Medical Directive cannot operate in abstraction. There has to be safeguards. They need to be spelt out. We enumerate them as follows: 198.1. Who can execute the Advance Directive and how? 198.1.1. The Advance Directive can be executed only by an adult who is of a sound and healthy state of mind and in a position to communicate, relate and comprehend the purpose and consequences of executing the document. 198.1.2. It must be voluntarily executed and without any coercion or inducement or compulsion and after having full knowledge or information. 198.1.3. It should have characteristics of an informed consent given without any undue influence or constraint. 198.1.4. It shall be in writing clearly stating as to when medical treatment may be withdrawn or no specific medical treatment shall be given which will only have the effect of delaying the process of death that may otherwise cause him/her pain, anguish and suffering and further put him/her in a state of indignity. 198. 2. What should it contain? 198.2.1. It should clearly indicate the decision relating to the A B C D E F G H 1139 circumstances in which withholding or withdrawal of medical treatment can be resorted to. 198.2.2. It sho
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.