Aruna Shanbaug: A Traumatized

Judgement?

Aruna Shanbaug, a 61 year old woman has been in a vegetative state for the past 38 years, now the SC rejects her
plea of mercy killing (euthanasia) stating that man cannot take anything away which it cannot give. The court in its
judgment also requested the constitution to abolish section 309 of the IPC (attempt to suicide) , giving the reason
that the person needs treatment and not punishment.
Aruna suffered for 38 years and still is while Sohanlal Walmiki who committed this heinous crime served only 7
years in jail on account of robbery but not on sexual harassment or rape. Is this the state of justice in our
country? Is this what our judiciary can provide?
Arunas story has a great emotional side to it also. The fateful night of 27th November, 1973, changed Arunas life
completely. She was to leave the KEM hospital the next day on account of her wedding leave. There is more to the
case than meets the eye. The hospital authorities tried to hide the fact that she was a victim of anal sex also
because they didnt want defamation to dawn upon her as she had an impending marriage. But is this the truth? Or
was the hospital trying to save their own face? Its because of them that the convicted got only 7 years jail since the
police were not given substantial evidence.
Aruna was strangulated by a dog chain which damaged her brain stem, paralyzed her and blinded her . The judicial
system views the situation from the 3rd party objective but fails to understand what the victim is going through
living like a vegetable.
This is not just a case with legal aspects but it is the greatest case in the Indian Judicial System dealing with moral
and ethical issues. Is our society mature enough to use this judgment of euthanasia properly or is it still nave? Will
the people of India use this in order to get property kill their parents without reason? These are unanswered
questions about our society.
The judgment by the Supreme Court allows passive euthanasia but forbids active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is
withholding of medication, removal of life support systems while active euthanasia is administering lethal
substances through injection to put the person in a deep sleep which leads to death. Active euthanasia ensures that
something is done to end the persons life while in passive euthanasia something is not done that would have
preserved the patients life a little longer. Passive euthanasia allows the person to die a natural death.
Will we use this judgement wisely in the treatment of certain cases? Who will decide what comprises of these
certain cases? Should Aruna be given the chance to decide? Lets hope that we educate and spread awareness
amongst the youth, so that the gift of our Supreme Courts judgment could be used wisely. We saw the work of a
journalist Pinki Virani who had first reported this case 25 years ago in 1990. She also wrote a book Arunas
Story to spread more awareness. We should take example and help such issues come up to the surface. Although
most of the news articles and stories published seem to focus on the emotional angle of the suffering of the victim
and the travesty of justice they fail to elaborate that the legal system and the police were frustrated in their genuine
and earnest efforts for a proper conviction due to distortion of the facts by hospital authorities due to concerns
extraneous to the judicial process. So we need to be responsible now and understand what lies ahead of us.