Teacher Demands for Euthanasia Due to  Property Disputes in Rajkot: A Complex Nexus of Euthensia in India

In a distressing turn of events, retired teacher Sarita Makwana from Rajkot has made headlines as she seeks euthanasia, alleging the wrongful seizure of her property by relatives. The dispute involves plots worth crores, along with other assets, reportedly taken by her younger son-in-law, nephew, and cousin. Sarita’s husband, who was employed in the Income Tax Department, adds another layer to the controversy. This case brings attention to the broader issue of euthanasia, raising questions about its legal status in India and the ethical dimensions surrounding end-of-life decisions.

Sarita’s plight is not an isolated incident. Instances of individuals contemplating or seeking euthanasia due to various reasons, including medical conditions, financial distress, or family disputes, have surfaced across the country. While each case is unique, they collectively spark a conversation about the moral and legal implications of assisted dying.

The ethical debate surrounding euthanasia has been ongoing, with proponents arguing for the right to die with dignity, especially in cases of unbearable suffering or terminal illnesses. Opponents, on the other hand, emphasize the sanctity of life and the potential for abuse if euthanasia were legalized.

India currently does not have a specific law addressing euthanasia. The Supreme Court, in its landmark judgment in 2018, recognized the right to die with dignity, allowing passive euthanasia under certain conditions. However, the absence of comprehensive legislation leaves room for ambiguity and varying interpretations.

The legal landscape of euthanasia in India is marked by a clear distinction between active and passive euthanasia. While several nations and jurisdictions, including Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, and some U.S. states, permit forms of active euthanasia, such practices remain illegal in India.

Passive euthanasia, characterized by the withholding and withdrawal of life support, has found legal standing in India under specific circumstances, following significant Supreme Court judgments. The cases of Aruna Shanbaug (2011) and Common Cause (2018) played pivotal roles in shaping the legal framework surrounding end-of-life decisions.

In the landmark Aruna Shanbaug case, activist Pinki Virani filed a petition in 2009, highlighting the prolonged suffering of nurse Aruna Shanbaug, who had been in a vegetative state for 42 years. While the Supreme Court rejected the plea to discontinue Aruna’s life support in 2011, it acknowledged the concept of passive euthanasia and legalized the withdrawal of treatment or sustenance allowing a patient to live.

The subsequent Common Cause v Union of India (2018) case further refined the legal stance on euthanasia. The court, while observing inconsistencies in its earlier judgment, referred the matter to a five-judge bench. In 2018, the bench declared the validity of “living wills” or advance medical directives, permitting consenting patients to be passively euthanized if facing terminal illness or in a vegetative state.

The absence of specific legislation on euthanasia in India prompted the court to establish guidelines, effectively becoming the de facto law of the land until parliamentary action. The 2018 decision, while embracing passive euthanasia, rejected active euthanasia involving lethal injections.

The legal evolution continued in January 2023, as the Supreme Court modified its guidelines from the Common Cause judgment, streamlining the process for preparing a valid advance medical directive.

The evolving landscape of euthanasia in India reflects a delicate balance between individual autonomy and societal, legal, and ethical considerations. The ongoing dialogue around this complex issue underscores the need for a comprehensive legal framework to address the varied facets of end-of-life decisions, ensuring both dignity and compassion. As discussions persist, the nation grapples with the broader question of whether euthanasia should be explicitly legalized and regulated in India.

The question still lingers whether and on what criteria should euthensia should be legal in India because a case like Sarita Makwana from Rajkot, staggers the legality of the whole case.