1.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioners humbly submit this written submission in response to the writ petition filed before this

Hon’ble Supreme Court1.

The petition invokes its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India 2.
It sets forth the facts and the laws on which the claims are based on peacefully with dignity.

1The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 2The Constitution of India, 1950, Article32, Right to life

1
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 2. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Runa was a Staff Nurse Working in the Queen Memorial Hospital (QM) 1, Mambli. The tragic
incident happened on the evening of 20th November, 1977. Runa was attacked by a sweeper in the
hospital who wrapped a dog chain around her neck and yanked her back with it. He tried to rape her
but on finding that she was menstruating, he sodomized her. To immobilize her during this act he
twisted the chain around her neck.

The next day a cleaner found her lying on the floor with blood all over in an unconscious Condition.
It’s alleged that due to strangulation by the dog chain the supply of oxygen to the brain stopped and
this incident did not allow oxygen to reach her brain, as a result of which her brain got damaged.

She also had brain stem contusion injury with associated cervical cord injury. It is alleged of the
petition that 38 years have expired since the incident and runa baug is about 64 years of age. She is
featherweight, and her brittle bones could break if her hand or legs or awkwardly caught even
accidently under her lighter body. Her skin is now like papier mache stretched over a skeleton. She
is prone to bed sores. Her wrists are twisted inwards.

Her teeth hand decayed causing her immense pain. She can only be given mashed food, on which
she survives. It is alleged that Runa baug is in a persistent negetative state (P.V.S) 2 and virtually
dead. She can neither see, nor hear anything nor can she express herself or communicate, in any
manner whatsoever. Mashed food is put in her mouth, she is not able to chew or taste able to
swallow any liquid food, which shows that the food goes down on its own and not because of any
effort on her part. The Process of digestion goes on in this way as the mashed food passes through
her system .However Runa is virtually a skeleton.

1 Queen Memorial Hospital Mambli. 2 P.V.S - Persistent Vegetative State

2
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
The case before the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution1 was filed according to facts of
the case, Runa has been surviving on mashed food as she was not able to chew or taste any food and
she could not move her hands or legs. It is alleged that there is not the slightest possibility of any
improvement in her condition and her body lies on the bed in the QM2 Hospital like a dead animal,
and this has been the position for the last 38 years4.

1The Constitution of India, 1950, Article32, Right to life, 2Queen Memorial Hospital , Mambli ,

3
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 3. ISSUES RAISED

3.1) WHETHER THE WRIT PETITIONS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION1 OF
INDIA IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

3.2) WHETHER RIGHT TO DIE HAS TO PROVE VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT?

3.3) WHETHER THAT SECTION 309 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 2 WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

AS IT IS VOLATILE OF ARTICLE 193 AND 214?

3.4) WHETHER A PERSON IS IN A PERSISTENT VEGETATIVE STATE SHOULD WITHHOLD OR

WITHDRAWAL OF LIFE SUSTAINING THERAPIES BE PERMISSIBLE OR NOT?

3.5) WHETHER CAN BE LEGALLY DECLARED A RIGHT TO DIE THAT WAY OF PASSIVE AND
NON VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA WAS PEACEFULLY WITH DIGNITY?

1The Constitution of India, 1950, Article32, Right to life, 2The Indian Penal Code 1860, Sec 309 Attempt to

4
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
commit suicide, 3 Article 19- .4Article 21- right to life

5
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 4. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

4.1) WHETHER THE WRIT PETITIONS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the writ petition filed by the petitioner under
the provisions of Constitution of India is maintainable on the ground that there is a grave substantial
question of law.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the present matter, was approached under Article 32 of the
Indian Constitution to allow for the termination of the life of runa who was in a persistent vegetative
state and thus legally there was no violation that would enable to approach the court under Article 32
of the Constitution of India.

Hence, the petition should be maintainable under Art.32 of the Constitution of India and this Case
involving an important issue of law though no fundamental right violated.

6
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
4.2) WHETHER RIGHT TO DIE HAS TO PROVE VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
The right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and also include the right to die. It has
not shown violation of any of her fundamental rights. However, in view of the importance of the
issues involved we decided to go deeper into the merits of the case.
However in the case Chenna Jagadesswar v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1, the Andhra Pradesh High
Court held that right to die is not violation a fundamental right under article 21 of the Constitution.

Meaning of Euthanasia.
The term euthanasia comes from the Greek words. It is a combination of two words eu - good or
well and thanatos - death means to die well or good death or easy death.
Euthanasia is defined as the 'termination of human life by painless means for the purpose of ending
physical suffering. Sometimes, euthanasia is also defined as killing a person rather than ending the
life of a person who is suffering from some terminal illness, also called as 'mercy killing' or killing
in the name of compassion.

4.2.1) Legal rights of Euthanasia:

Coming now to the legally in this case, it may be noted that euthanasia is of two types:
A) Active Euthanasia
B) Passive Euthanasia
A) Active Euthanasia
Active euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or forces to kill a person e.g. a lethal injection
given to a person with terminal cancer who is in terrible agony.
B) Passive Euthanasia
Passive euthanasia entails withholding of medical treatment for continuance of life, e.g. withholding
of antibiotics where without giving it a patient is likely to die, or removing the heart lung machine,
from a patient in coma.

1The Chenna Jagadeeswar And Anr. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 16 April, 1987.

7
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
4.2.2) Different type of Euthanasia
A further categorization of euthanasia is between to
A) Voluntary euthanasia and B) Non voluntary euthanasia.

A) Voluntary euthanasia:
Voluntary euthanasia is where the consent is taken from the patient.

B) Non voluntary euthanasia:

Non voluntary euthanasia is where the consent is unavailable e.g. when the patient is in coma or is
otherwise unable to give consent

4.2.3) Parameters of Right to Die

A) Brain Death:
It means complete absence of voluntary movements. This patient can only be maintained alive by
advanced life support machine. These patients can be legally declared dead to allow their organs to
be taken for donation.

B) Coma Patients:
These patients are unconscious and they cannot be awakened even by application of a painful
stimulus. They have normal heart beat and breathing and do not require advanced life support.

C) Persistent vegetative stage (PVS):

In PVS complete absence of behavioural evidence for self or environmental awareness. They cannot
voluntarily control passing of urine and stool. So PVS patient Continues to breath unaided and his
digestion continues to function but his eye are open but unable to see and hear.

8
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
2. WHETHER THAT SECTION 309 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS IT IS VOLATILE OF ARTICLE19 AND 21.

Case Laws:
1.Maruti Shripati Dubal vs State Of Maharashtra on 25 September, 1986, Bom CR 499, (1986)
88 BOMLR 589.
The High Court of Bombay in Maruti Shripati Dubal’s case 1 held Section 309 (punishment for
attempted suicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as violative of Articles 19 and 21 (Right to Life)
of the Constitution.
The Court held section 309 of the IPC 2 as invalid and stated that Article 213 to be construed to
include right to die. The contention was that Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code was
unconstitutional as it is violative of Article 194 and 21.
It was held in this case by the Bombay high court that right to life also includes right to die and
section 309 was struck down. The court clearly said in this case that right to die is not unnatural; it is
just uncommon and abnormal.
2.P.Rathinam vs Union Of India on 26 April, 1994 AIR 1844, 1994 SCC (3) 394

In 1994, the Supreme Court of India ruled in the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India 5 that section
309 of the IPC is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution as the latter includes right to death and
'Right to live' includes 'Right to die ' or to terminate one's life. Hence, the Court held that 'right to life
under article 21 of the Indian Constitution includes right to die. Both the learned counsel counsel
contended that Section 306 as well as Section 309 is unconstitutional.
Both of them relied on the decision in P. Rathinam. However, Shri Ujagar Singh supported the
conclusion in P. Rathinam of the constitutional invalidity of Section 309, IPC only on the ground of
violation of Article 14 and not Article 21. Shri B.S. Malik contended euthanasia is not relevant for
deciding the question of constitutional validity of Section 309. He submitted that Article 21 cannot
be construed to include within it the so called 'right to die'.
The two petitions at hand have assailed the validity of Section 309 by contending that the same is
violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and the prayer is to declare the section void

1The Maruti Shripati Dubal vs State of Maharashtra on 25 September, 1986, 2The Indian Penal Code 1860, Sec 309
Attempt to commit suicide, 3 Article 21- right to life , 4Article 19 , 5P.Rathinam vs Union Of India on 26 April, 1994.

9
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
4. WHETHER A PERSON IS IN A PERSISTENT VEGETATIVE STATE SHOULD WITHHOLD OR
WITHDRAWAL OF LIFE SUSTAINING THERAPIES BE PERMISSIBLE OR NOT?

The statement of law by the House of Lords in Airedale that euthanasia is unlawful and can be
permitted only by the Legislature i.e., act of killing a patient painlessly for relieving his suffering
from incurable illness. Otherwise, it is not legal.

Assisted suicide is where a doctor is requested by a patient suffering from pain and he helps the
patient by medicine to put an end to his life. This is also not permissible in law.

Referred to the principles laid down by the House of Lords in Airedale17case, where the House of
Lords accepted that withdrawal of life supporting systems on the basis of informed medical
opinion, would be lawful because such withdrawal would only allow the patient who is beyond
recovery to die a normal death, where there is no longer any duty to prolong life.

The selective cases decided on commission of suicide as an offence or as a constitutional right can
be enumerated here briefly. Though their focus diverts from the issue at hand, but they are relevant
in a peculiar manner.

Sometimes euthanasia is equated with the right to die. Some argue that, as we have right to life and
personal liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of India, we have right to death embedded in it
as well.

16
1996 AIR 946, 1996 SCC (2) 648
17.Airedale N.H.A. Trust v. Bland, 1993 (2) W.L.R. 316 (H.L.)
10
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
4.1) Difference between euthanasia and suicide

Suicide and euthanasia cannot be treated as one and the same. These are terms are interchangeable
either. They involve different acts and mental state. In order to understand euthanasia it is important

to understand the distinguishing features of them. ‘Suicide as mentioned in Oxford Dictionary 1

means the act of killing yourself deliberately. Therefore, suicide could be termed as the intentional
termination of one’s life by self- induced means for numerous reasons.

People commit suicide for common reasons like frustration in love life, failure in examinations or
getting a good job, or due to mental depression. Euthanasia is nowhere defined. No religious books
show evidence about it. The concept has not been much addressed. Preferring euthanasia over life is
as good as committing suicide in sophisticated manner. Here lies the basis for opposition to
euthanasia. Legal perspective to suicide has different dimensions. In Indian law intention is the basis
for penal liability.

An act is not criminal if there is commission or omission without the intention. The law of crimes in
India is based on the famous Latin maxim,
“Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.” Here two terms are essential. One is actus reus (guilty act)
and second is mens rea (guilty mind).

Commission of a crime requires presence of the elements. While in euthanasia the guilty mind is of
the person who consents for euthanasia, while the act of crime is fulfilled by someone else.
Separations of the essentials create complications. Conditions for incidence of crime are absent. But
the Indian law is very clear on this point.

One may argue that giving the consent absolves a person from liability or he may plead the defense
of volenti non fit injuria Law relating to consent as contained in Indian Penal Code is exhaustive and
leaves no ambiguity in its explanation.

1
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. (2000). Sixth Edition.; Oxford University Press.

11
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
Case Law

1.Naresh Marotrao Sakhre v. Union of India; 1995 Cri.L.J 95 (Bomb)

In Naresh Marotrao Sakhre’s case1 the Bombay High Court also observed that suicide by its very
nature is an act of self killing or self destruction, an act of terminating one’s own life and without the
aid and assistance of any other human agency.

Euthanasia or mercy killing on the other hand means and implies the intervention of other human
agency to end the life. Mercy killing is thus not suicide. The two concepts are both factually and
legally distinct. Euthanasia or mercy killing is nothing but homicide whatever the circumstances in
which it is affected.

Herein, the concept of assisted suicide is also involved, which can be defined as providing an
individual with the information, guidance and means to take his or her own life with the intention
that it will be used for this purpose.

Assisted suicide is distinguished from active euthanasia in the sense that in the former, person must
take deliberate steps to bring about his or her own death. Medical personnel may provide assistance,
but the patient commits the act of suicide while in active euthanasia, it is the doctor who ends the life
of the patient. When a doctor helps people to kill themselves it is called ‘doctor assisted suicide’.

1
Naresh Marotrao Sakhre v. Union of India; 1995 Cri.L.J 95 (Bomb)

12
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
5. WHETHER CAN BE LEGALLY DECLARED A RIGHT TO DIE THAT WAY OF PASSIVE AND
NON VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA WAS PEACEFULLY WITH DIGNITY?

Further, Runa was in bed, suffering for more than three long decades. A decision in favour of
allowing euthanasia in her case would have been fair from a third person point of view. However,
the same would not have been justified as there is no technology that can read and understand what
her mind and body wanted at that moment of time.

Furthermore, euthanasia petitions should be used as precedents as reports and criticality of each
medical case varies from one case to other. Therefore, the legislature and the Indian Medical
Association and other medical authorities should ensure that a well drafted law regarding euthanasia
and other related medical procedures is passed in the near future.

It is for the legislature to make appropriate law governing euthanasia and also maintain the said
procedure as set by the Supreme Court in the instant case to ensure that there is no misuse of
law or procedure.

The probable reason why the law in India has failed to give a uniform opinion in this regard is
because such a petition demanding euthanasia may be filed having mala fide intentions with be
legally declared a right to die that way of passive and non voluntary euthanasia was peacefully with
dignity.

6. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
13
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 Although in the present case we are dealing with a case related to passive euthanasia, it would be of
some interest note the legislations in certain countries permitting passive euthanasia. There have
been several judicial pronouncements by the apex Courts across the world on one’s right to end
his/her life.
Legislation in Some Countries Relating to Euthanasia or Physician Assisted Death.
However, despite in-depth judicial deliberations during the last four decades, the issue continues to
reflect heterogeneous approaches. It may be worthwhile to quote some of the decisions of the courts
in the USA, Canada, the UK, Ireland, Switzerland, France, Germany, Italy, the European Court of
Human Rights, and Australia.The Passive euthanasia is legal even without legislation provided
certain conditions and safeguards are maintained.
These are given below.
I. Australia
II. Albania
III. Belgium
IV. Netherland
V. Canada
VI. United States of America
VII. England
VIII. The United Kingdom
IX. Switzerland
X. Washington

I. Australia
The Northern Territory of Australia was the first country to legalize euthanasia. It did so by
passing the Rights of the Terminally III Act, 19951. It was held to be legal in the case of Wake v.
Northern Territory of Australia2 by the Supreme Court of Northern Territory of Australia.
Subsequently, the Euthanasia Laws Act, 19973 legalized it. Although it is not a crime in most
Australian States to assist euthanasia, prosecutions have been rare.

1Rights of the Terminally III Act, 1995, 2http:/ /www.legalservicesindia.com, visited on 8th March, 2015.
3Euthanasia Laws Act, 1997 Australian Constitution.

14
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
II.Albania
In the year 1999 Euthanasia was legalized in Albania. It stated that any form of voluntary euthanasia

was legal under the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, 19951. Passive euthanasia is considered legal if
three or more family members consent to the decisions
.
III.Belgium
Euthanasia was made legal in the year 2002. The Belgian Parliament had enacted the Belgium Act

on Euthanasia in September 20022. It defines euthanasia as intentionally terminating life by

someone other than the person concerned at the latter's request.
Requirements for contemplating euthanasia are very strict. They include that the patient must be
an adult, has repeated and well considered the request which is voluntary, and he/she must be in a
condition of unbearable physical or mental suffering that can be alleviated.
All these acts must be referred to the authorities before allowing in order to satisfying essential
requirements.

IV Netherlands
Euthanasia in the Netherlands is regulated by the Termination of Life on Request and Assisted
Suicide (Review Procedures) Act, 2002.It states that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are
not punishable if the attending physician acts in accordance with the criteria of due care.
Thus, though active euthanasia is technically unlawful in the Netherlands, it is considered justified
(not legally punishable) if the physician follows the guidelines

1
The Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995, passed by the Parliament of the Northern Territory of Australia in 1995.
2 3
The Belgian "Act on Euthanasia": Clarifying Context, Legislation, and Practice. Termination of Life on Request and
Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act, 2002

15
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
V.Canada
In Canada, patients have the rights to refuse life sustaining treatments but they do have the right to
demand euthanasia or assisted suicide.

VI.United States of America

There is a distinction between passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. While active euthanasia is
prohibited but sustaining treatment of the patient either on his request or at the request of patient's
authorized representatives. Euthanasia has been made totally illegal by the United States Supreme

Court in the cases Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill 1 In these cases the respondents are
physicians who claim a right to prescribe lethal medication for mentally competent, terminally-ill
patients who are suffering from great pain and who desire doctor's help in taking their own lives, but
are deterred from doing so because of the New York Act. They contended that this is not different
from permitting a person to refuse life sustaining medical treatment and hence, the Act is
discriminatory
Active Euthanasia is illegal in all states in U.S.A., but physician assisted dying is legal in the states
of Oregon, Washington and Montana. Further, Washington and Montana also have similar
legislations in place. Countries like Belgium, Canada have also joined the move. On the other hand,
countries such as Spain, UK, do not express their solidarity towards euthanasia.
VII.England
The House of Lords have now settled that a person has a right to refuse life sustaining treatment as
part of his rights of autonomy and self-determination. The House of Lords also permitted non-
voluntary euthanasia in case of patients in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS). Moreover, in a very

important case namely Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland 2 the House of Lords made a distinction between
withdrawal of life support on the one hand, and Euthanasia and assisted suicide on the other hand

1 2
Washington v. Glucksberg, Vacco v. Quill. (1997) 117 SCT 2293, Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland,

16
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
VIII. The United Kingdom
The euthanasia was illegal in United Kingdom. On November 5, 2006 British Royal College of
Obstructions and Gynecologists submitted a proposal to the Nuffield Counsel of Bioethics calling
for consideration of permitting the euthanasia of disabled new-born.

X.Switzerland:
Article 115 of the Swiss Penal Code considers assisting suicide a crime if, and only if, the motive is
selfish. The code does not give Article 115 of the Swiss Penal Code considers assisting suicide a
crime if, and only if, the motive is selfish. The code does not give physicians a special status in
assisting suicide; although, they are most likely to have access to suitable drugs. Ethical guidelines
have cautioned physicians against prescribing deadly drugs.
The Swiss law is unique because
(1) the recipient need not be a Swiss national, and
(2) a physician need not be involved. Many persons from other countries, especially Germany, go to
Switzerland to undergo euthanasia.Switzerland has an unusual position on assisted suicide; it is
legally permitted and can be performed by non-physicians. However, euthanasia is illegal, the
difference between assisted suicide and euthanasia being that while in the former the patient
administers the lethal injection himself, in the latter a doctor or some other person administers it.
According to the Swiss Penal Code, any individual including a doctor aiding the patient to death is
representative of selfish motive.

X.Washington:

Washington was the second state in U.S.A. which allowed the practice of physician assisted death in the

year 2008 by passing the Washington Death with Dignity Act, 2008

38 39
1987 Cri.L.J 743 (Bom.), Maruti ShripatiDubal v. State of Maharastra; 1987 Cri.L.J 743 (Bomb) 40.. P. Rathinam vs.
52
Union of India and Anr., 1994) SCC 394, AIR 1997 SC 411.
8 Swiss Penal Code, 1942, Article 115.
17
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 18
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 19
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 20
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
6.PRAYER

The Petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be please to:-

1. However there has always been a debate on “right to die” is also an integral Part of the “Right
to Life”.

2. The prayer of the petitioner was to be directed to stop feeding Runa, and let her die peacefully
with dignity.

All of which is most humbly prayed

Counsel for the Petitioner.

21
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 22
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS