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

Citation: [2018] 6 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 09-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 11 judgment(s) · cites 18 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA
1
[2018] 6 S.C.R. 1
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY)
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 215 of 2005)
MARCH 09, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. K. SIKRI,
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, ASHOK BHUSHAN AND
A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Art.21 – Passive Euthanasia – Right
to die with dignity – Held: The right to life with dignity includes the
smoothening of the process of dying when the person is in a
vegetative state or is living exclusively by the administration of
artificial aid that prolongs the life by arresting the dignified and
inevitable process of dying – Here, the issue of choice also comes
in – Such a right should come within the ambit of Art.21 of the
Constitution – As part of right to die with dignity in case of dying
man who is terminally ill or in a persistent vegetative state only
passive euthanasia would come within the ambit of Art.21 and not
the one which would fall within the description of active euthanasia
in which positive steps are taken either by the treating physician or
some other person.  (Per Dipak Misra, CJI [for himself and
Khanwilkar, J.])
Constitution of India – Art.21 – Right to refuse treatment – A
patient (terminally ill or in a persistent vegetative state) exercising
the right to refuse treatment may ardently wish to live but, at the
same time, he may wish to be free from any medical surgery, drugs
or treatment of any kind so as to avoid protracted physical suffering
– Any such person who has come of age and is of sound mind has
a right to refuse medical treatment – This right stands on a different
pedestal as compared to suicide, physician assisted suicide or even
euthanasia – When a terminally ill patient refuses to take medical
treatment, it can neither be termed as euthanasia nor as suicide – A
patient refusing medical treatment merely allows the disease to take
its natural course and if, in this process, death occurs, the cause
for it would primarily be the underlying disease and not any self
initiated act – All adults with capacity to consent have the right of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
self- determination and autonomy – The ‘Emergency Principle’ or
the ‘Principle of Necessity’ has to be given effect to only when it is
not practicable to obtain the patient’s consent for treatment and
his/her life is in danger – But where a patient has already made a
valid Advance Directive which is free from reasonable doubt and
specifying that he/she does not wish to be treated, then such directive
has to be given effect to.(Per Dipak Misra, CJI [for himself and
Khanwilkar, J.])
Constitution of India – Art.21 – Right to refuse treatment –
Continuing treatment against the wishes of a patient is not only a
violation of the principle of informed consent, but also of bodily
privacy and bodily integrity that have been recognised as a facet
of privacy –  Just as people value having control over decisions
during their lives such as where to live, which occupation to pursue,
whom to marry, and whether to have children, so people value
having control over whether to continue living when the quality of
life deteriorates. (Per Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)
Constitution of India – Art.21 – Dignity of life must encompass
dignity in the stages of living which lead up to the end of life –
Dignity in the process of dying is as much a part of the right to life
under Art.21 – To deprive an individual of dignity towards the end
of life is to deprive the individual of a meaningful existence – Hence,
the Constitution protects the legitimate expectation of every person
to 
lead 
a 
life 
of 
dignity 
until 
death 
occurs.
(Per Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)
Constitution of India – Art.21 – Right to refuse treatment –
An adult human being of conscious mind is fully entitled to refuse
medical treatment or to decide not to take medical treatment and
may decide to embrace the death in natural way.
(Per Ashok Bhushan, J.)
Constitution of India – Art.21 – Decision for withdrawal of
life saving treatment in case of a person who is incompetent to take
an informed decision – Held: Right of patient who is incompetent to
express his view cannot be outside of fold of Art.21 of the
Constitution – When an adult person having mental capacity to
take a decision can exercise his right not to take treatment or
withdraw from treatment, the above right cannot be negated for a
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UN

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