Activist Supreme Court back in action: hears Pinki Virani's petition on right to die

Bar&Bench News Network

Dec 17, 2009

Activist-author Pinki Virani, the author of several seminal works relating to women's empowerment in India, is now fighting for the right to die of 61-year old rape victim, Aruna Shanbaug [pictured]. Acting as a next friend, Virani has filed a petition in the Supreme Court for permission to remove the comatose rape victim from life support.

In 1973, Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug, a nurse, was brutally raped by a sweeper in Mumbai's King Edward Memorial Hospital, where she was working. She has been in a coma ever since, and has been surviving on life support systems for the last 36 years.

The petition explains that Shanbaug has been kept in this persistent vegetative state by the hospital authorities by feeding her mashed food, which she can hardly digest. "She cannot speak, hear or see, there is no element of human life in her body," avers the petition.

The special bench comprising Chief Justice Balakrishnan, A.K. Ganguly and B.S. Chauhan observed that the "law of the country does not permit a person to die."  Senior Counsel Shekhar Naphade, representing Shanbaug through Virani, responded, "Is not keeping the woman in this persistent vegetative state by force-feeding, violative of her right to live with dignity, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution?'' 

The courts in India have consistently held that the "right to die" is different from the "right to life" enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. However, despite its hesitance in taking up the petition, the Bench admitted the matter and issued notice to the Union of India and the state government to file their replies.

 

Add to My Clips Print this Story Email this Story

 

Facebook LinkedIn MySpace Digg Del.icio.us twitter

Comments(5)
  • 1. "Is she on assisted breathing? What do you mean by life support here? ". Vinago, Mumbai
  • 2. "A.21 doesnt include the right to die is what the Supreme court said in Gian Kaur's case. It ofcourse is not bound by its own judgement.A person has the right of self determination, the right to decide what should happen with his/her body. In cases where the person cannot state what he/she wants to do with his/her body/life there is a presumption in favour of living as opposed to dying. I feel that, if there is nothing to show how she wanted to exercise the right of self determination then a positive presumption can be drawn.". Shardul Singh, Mumbai
  • 3. "I am totally in favour of Euthanasia; commonly referred to as 'Good Death'. I wish all the best to ms. Pinki and truly hope that she succeeds. These people *government* really need to realize that there's something heavier than the constitution which tops the list of priority . . it's called 'humanity'. We aren't telling them to break the rule or violate any of the 'ARTICLES' given in the constitution .. just 'bend' the rules.". Arjun, Delhi
  • 4. "its indeed a great move and great achievement of petitioner lawyers that SC admits the petition...SC should take a courageous step and grant 'good death' to her.... ". Manan, Ahmedabad
  • 5. "let us hope the SC shows enlightenment and grants this lady the right to die with dignity.". Guest, Bristol
Post Your Comment

Name* :

Location :

Email Id :

Comment * :

Notify me when there is a comment


 

The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?

bullets

 

May 17, 2012 | Bar & Bench brings to you the twentieth article on 'The Viewpoint' series with its Knowledge Partner AZB & Partners. AZB Senior Associate Nandish Vyas and Associate Pranati Ishwar in this article seek to examine the context in which indemnification rights are relevant for acquisition transactions, and also seek to explore if there are areas where they are potentially not worth the  comments (4)

 

 

Thank you. Comments are subject to moderation.