SC expresses disinclination to entertain a plea of man for euthanasia, observes it was not a case of passive euthanasia but of active euthanasia

On August 20, 2024, the Supreme Court (SC) of India issued notice to the Union  government to respond to a plea concerning the care and good treatment facilities of a 30-year-old man who has been in a vegetative state since 2013. This was directed after the bench expressed disinclination to entertain a plea of a man for euthanasia observing that it was not a case of passive euthanasia (mercy killing by withdrawal of life support) but of active euthanasia (mercy killing by actively administering a lethal drug) which is not legal in India. The petitioners approached the top court against the decision of the Delhi High Court that rejected their plea to constitute a medical board to examine if the man in a vegetative state could be euthanized. The bench constituting Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra said that the High Court has rightly dismissed his petition. The SC said, “The High Court held that passive euthanasia is not permissible as per the Common Cause judgment and that the person was not kept alive mechanically and was alive without external life support. We are in support with view of the High Court, that the case does not fall under the ambit of passive euthanasia, since there is no external life support.” 

However, the Supreme Court sought a response from the Central government on the possibility of providing better treatment or care facilities to the petitioner. The Court said, “At the same time, the Court is mindful that the parents are now aged and cannot care for their son who is bedridden for 13 years and if any other humanitarian solution can be found other than passive euthanasia. Thus we issue notice to the centre and we request Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati to assist us.” The CJI said, “This is a very hard case. This person is in vegetative state since 2013 in Ghaziabad. We are moved by the plight of the parents. We think the High Court was correct since putting an end to his life would mean injecting something.” Further, He asked Additional Solicitor General Bhati “Is there some place where he can be lodged and be taken care of?” The ASG replied that she would look into the matter and assist the court in the same.