BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CONSTITUTIONAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPEAL filed under Article 132, Constitution of India

Petition No.___/2015

[Against the impugned judgement and order passed by the High Court of Delhi
at Delhi bench in Constitutional Appeal No.___/2015]

IN THE MATTER OF:

Reema Dixit v/s. Union of India

ALONG WITH

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION Filed under Article 32, Constitution of India

PIL No. /2015

Kind Hands Foundation v/s. Union of India

On the Submission before the Registry of Court on 18/01/2017

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

1
Table of Contents

1. List of Abbreviations______________________________________________03
2. Index of Authorities_______________________________________________04
3. Statement of Jurisdiction_________________________________________05
4. Statement of Facts________________________________________________06
5. Statement of Issues________________________________________________07
6. Summary of Arguments_____________________________________________08
7. Question of Law____________________________________________________09
8. Written Arguments_________________________________________________10
9. Prayer_______________________________________________________________15

2
List of Abbreviations

ALS Amyotrophic Lateral Selerosis

AIR All India Report
IPC Indian Penal Code
PIL Public Interest Litigation
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCC Supreme Court of Canada
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
UK United Kingdom
Ors Others
WLR Weekly Law Reports
AC Appeal Cases

3
 Index of Authorities

Indian Cases:

Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs Union of India and Ors, AIR 2011

P. Rathinam vs. Union of India and another (1994) 3 SCC 394

Vikram Deo Singh Tomar vs. State of Bihar 1988 SCC 734

Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab (1996) 2 SCC 648

Common Cause (A Registered Society) v Union of India; Supreme Court of India, 25 February 2014

International Cases:

JS vs M and F, Case No. FD16P00521, 2016

Carter v Canada (Attorney General) 2015 SCC 5

Airedale v Bland [1993] 2 W.L.R. 316; [1993] A.C. 789

Statutory Legislations:

Article 21, Constitution of India, 1950

Article 132, Constitution of India, 1950

Section 300, 306, 309, Indian Penal Code, 1860

International Legislations:

Article 5, United Nations Human Rights charter

Article 3, European Convection of Human Rights

Section 7, 14, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom

Section 241, Criminal Code of Canada

4
Statement of Jurisdiction

The Appellant Reema Dixit has approached the Supreme Court of India under Article 132 of the
Constitution of India

132. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in certain cases

(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgement, decree or final order of a High Court in
the territory of India, whether in a civil, criminal or other proceeding, that the case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution.

5
Statement of Facts

Rahul Dixit a resident of Delhi, whose mother is a British citizen, went to U.K. in the year 1982 to pursue
his masters and PhD in Law. After completing his studies joined the Department of Legal Studies as a
professor in 1987 and moved on to become a well reputed attorney. In the year 1996, Reema Seth moved
to U.K. to pursue her master’s course in Law at Queens College London. She met Rahul through a
common friend and then she was in contact with him during her course for guidance. Their association
resulted into a relationship and finally they got married in 2003. Their respective families were not happy
with their marriage because of the huge age gap. Rahul’s mother did not even attend the ceremony.
Reema after completing her master’s joined her husband’s law firm Amicus Curie which was one of the
top law firms in U.K. Both of them had been visiting India now and then, attending marriages of distant
relatives. They had a good time in India and especially their visit to Banaras. So they decided to buy a
house for themselves close to the river Ganges. In 2013 they celebrated their 10 years of marriage in
India. Rahul’s mother also came from U.K. and attended the ceremony. In May 2014, Rahul was
diagnosed with Amyotrophic Lateral Selerosis (ALS) also known as “Lou Gehrig’s disease”. There was
no cure, but doctors were nearly certain of achieving a breakthrough in a couple of years. Reema was a
strong woman and vowed to stay by his side. Meanwhile Rahul’s condition started deteriorating. Helen
was determined to find a solution to the situation and took Rahul for consultation. The doctors opined that
illness would be arduous and suffering would be a lot. A cure was in sight but not certain. Helen decided
to go for Cryonics, about which she had learned from her from friend who was an eminent doctor. She
obtained an order from a court in the U.K. allowing them to keep Rahul in cryonic suspension at the time
of his death. Not happy with the order Rahul whose health had now stabilized, handed over the firm’s
business to a partner and decided to move back to India with Reema for spiritual satisfaction. In the
meantime both of them made a ‘living will’. In addition Reema contacted “Re-birth Medical Services”, an
organization which recently started research in the field of cryonics in India. She signed a contract with
them with regard to Rahul and paid them a sum of £30,000 for their services. In January 2015 Rahul’s
condition worsened and doctors advised him not to travel at all. So in May 2015 Reema applied to the
Hon’ble High Court for euthanasia for Rahul and execution of the U.K. order in the event of his death.
The High Court advised that if Rahul wanted the procedure to be applied, he must move back to the UK
as the court there has already given its assent. The High Court dismissed the petition qua cryonics and
refused the execution of the order of the UK Court, saying there is no law in respect of this field of
medicine. With respect to active euthanasia, the Hon’ble High Court rejected the plea stating that it
violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reema then moved to the Supreme Court of India for
Euthanasia and to keep Rahul in cryonic suspension on his demise. Meanwhile an NGO named “Kind
Hands Foundation” filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court of India to disallow cryonics
and all forms of euthanasia in any case. The foundation claimed that it would look after all the patients
like Rahul and they were also ready to undertake the medical expenses relating to patients like Rahul.
Dismissing cryonics as a medical fiction and much against the doctrines of rebirth/karma in Hinduism
they were antagonistic to the idea of euthanasia saying that man had no right to take another humans life.
The case relating to medical termination and cryonic suspension of Rahul is before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India along with PIL by the foundation. Both the petitions have been clubbed and the matter is
now posted for the final hearing.

6
Statement of Issues:

Issue I:

Whether Reema’s plea on euthanasia for Rahul could be accepted releasing him of his untold misery and
conceding him a quick and dignified death.

Issue II:

Whether Rahul should be allowed to be placed in cryonic suspension on his demise in furtherance of the
order of the UK Court.

Issue III:

If Reema assisted Rahul die, would it attract Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

7
Summary of Arguments

Issue I:

Whether Reema’s plea on euthanasia for Rahul could be accepted releasing him of his untold misery and
conceding him a quick and dignified death.

Every person has a right over the body. Everyone should be able to choose when and how they want to
die and they should be able to do so with dignity. The concept of “quality of life” is an important aspect
of this argument. It is suggested that life should only continue as long as a person feels their life is worth
living. In 2011 the Hon’ble Supreme Court permitted the use of passive euthanasia which involves the
withdrawing of treatment or food that would allow the patient to live1. The suffering caused to Rahul by
the disease seemed endless and Reema was running out of options and couldn’t travel back to UK as the
doctors had strictly advised him not to travel on January 2015.So it is humbly contended that Reema’s
plea on euthanasia for Rahul could be accepted

Issue II:

Whether Rahul should be allowed to be placed in cryonic suspension on his demise in furtherance of the
order of the UK Court.

As Helen on behalf of Rahul has already taken the order from the Hon’ble UK court to go ahead with
cryonics, as there is a hope for life after death then why shouldn’t we go for it. Everyone has a right over
his body. Recently a landmark judgement was passed by the UK court allowing a girl of 14 years to be
placed in cryonic suspension on her demise2. Reema being the lawfully wedded wife of Rahul could not
imagine her life without Rahul and wanted him back. So it is humbly contended that Rahul should be
allowed to be placed in cryonic suspension on his demise

Issue III:

If Reema assisted Rahul die, would it attract Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

As Reema is the authorized person to act on behalf of Rahul3 as they both had made a living will as soon
as they moved back to India. Reema being the lawfully wedded wife of Rahul could not see her husband
suffer from the pain caused to him by the disease. Since Rahul was in great pain and suffering so the only
option left with Reema was euthanasia and Rahul being a patient of Amyotrophic Lateral Selerosis
(ALS) has no cure. It is humbly contended that if Reema assisted Rahul die, it wouldn’t attract Section
300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

1
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs Union of India and Ors, AIR 2011
2
JS vs M and F, Case No. FD16P00521, 2016
3
See also Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs Union of India and Ors, AIR 2011

8
Question of Law

1) Whether Euthanasia is a part of “Right to Life” under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If
allowed under what guidelines should it be practiced
2) If Euthanasia is legalized would it decriminalize Section 306 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860?
3) Should Cryonics be allowed in India?
4) Should “Living Will” be given a legal recognition?

9
Written Arguments

Issue I:

Whether Reema’s plea on euthanasia for Rahul could be accepted releasing him of his untold misery and
conceding him a quick and dignified death.

Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering. Euthanasia is
categorized in different ways, which include voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. Voluntary
euthanasia is legal in some countries. Non-voluntary euthanasia (patient's consent unavailable) is illegal
in all countries. Involuntary euthanasia (without asking consent or against the patient's will) is also illegal
in all countries and is usually considered murder.

Active euthanasia is taking specific steps to cause the patient's death, such as injecting the patient with
some lethal substance, e.g. sodium pentothal which causes a person deep sleep in a few seconds, and the
person instantaneously and painlessly dies in this deep sleep. A distinction is sometimes drawn between
euthanasia and physician assisted dying, the difference being in who administers the lethal medication. In
euthanasia, a physician or third party administers it, while in physician assisted suicide it is the patient
himself who does it, though on the advice of the doctor. In many countries/States the latter is legal while
the former is not. The difference between "active" and "passive" euthanasia is that in active euthanasia,
something is done to end the patient's life' while in passive euthanasia, something is not done that would
have preserved the patient's life.4

An important idea behind this distinction is that in "passive euthanasia" the doctors are not actively killing
anyone; they are simply not saving him. While we usually applaud someone who saves another person's
life, we do not normally condemn someone for failing to do so. If one rushes into a burning building and
carries someone out to safety, he will probably be called a hero. But if one sees a burning building and
people screaming for help, and he stands on the sidelines -- whether out of fear for his own safety, or the
belief that an inexperienced and ill-equipped person like himself would only get in the way of the
professional firefighters, or whatever -- if one does nothing, few would judge him for his inaction. One
would surely not be prosecuted for homicide.5

Thus, proponents of euthanasia say that while we can debate whether active euthanasia should be legal,
there can be no debate about passive euthanasia: You cannot prosecute someone for failing to save a life.
Even if you think it would be good for people to do X, you cannot make it illegal for people to not do X,
or everyone in the country who did not do X today would have to be arrested.6

"Life is not mere living but living in health. Health is not the absence of illness but a glowing
vitality the feeling of wholeness with a capacity for continuous intellectual and spiritual growth.
Physical, social, spiritual and psychological well being is intrinsically interwoven into the fabric
of life. According to Indian philosophy that which is born must die. Death is the only certain
thing in life".7

4
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs Union of India and Ors, AIR 2011
5
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs Union of India and Ors, supra[Para 45]
6
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs Union of India and Ors, supra[Para 46]
7
P. Rathinam vs. Union of India and another(1994) 3 SCC 394

10
"We live in an age when this Court has demonstrated, while interpreting Article 21 of the Constitution,
that every person is entitled to a quality of life consistent with his human personality. The right to live
with human dignity is the fundamental right of every Indian citizen". 8

Once our constitution has recognized under Article 21 that there is a right to live with dignity and if a
person has no dignity in the situation he is in and if he wishes to die it should be respected. Forcing a
person to live in pain and suffering is not at all a dignified life, hence euthanasia must be permitted.
Talking about ethics and morality, is it morally and ethically right to see a person suffer?
See Aruna’s case 9the amount of resources used for her service was a waste as there was no chance for her
recovery. Had we given euthanasia, we could have used that resource for some other patient who could
recover.
In current scenario doctors actually want to perform euthanasia for patients whose death is certain and
there is no scope for recovery, but they still cannot perform euthanasia because of its illegality.
The financial and emotional toll on the family of a comatose person can be unbearable. The heavy
financial investment on the patient who has no chance of recovery goes in vain. As a result this leads to
the bankruptcy of the family. This also affects the whole family emotionally and mentally weakens the
person emotionally attached to him. Ex-Son-Mother. Hence euthanasia should be legalized so that the
family members are not affected financially as well as emotionally.
Thus, Euthanasia should be legalized in India with strict conditions so that people do not have a chance to
misuse the right. In this case Rahul and his legally wedded wife Reema had already signed a “Living
Will” 10when they returned to India. Hence Rahul via “Living Will” has already shown his consent.
Although the constitutional bench has been setup for the consideration of living will as a legal document
but it can be considered valid in this case. When we talk of euthanasia we are talking about someone's life
so it has to be seen who's life it is, is it the son, daughter, wife or husband. It's that person's autonomy
which has to be respected. And here what is Rahul’s autonomy is that, he wants to have a dignified death
as has been expressed in the living will

In Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab (1996) 2 SCC 648 [para25], the judges observed that:

“A question may arise, in the context of a dying man, who is, terminally ill or in a persistent vegetative
state that he may be permitted to terminate it by a premature extinction of his life in those circumstances.
This category of cases may fall within the ambit of the 'right to die' with dignity as a part of right to live
with dignity, when death due to termination of natural life is certain and imminent and the process of
natural death has commenced. These are not cases of extinguishing life but only of accelerating
conclusion of the process of natural death which has already commenced”.

Hence, in case of euthanasia we are not killing the person but actually we are helping the patient by
accelerating the process of natural death. Therefore, euthanasia must be allowed.

Religious Point of View:

It may be mentioned that suicide was regarded as permissible in some circumstances in ancient India. In
the Chapter on “The hermit in the forest", Manu's Code11 says "Or let him walk, fully determined and

8
Vikram Deo Singh Tomar vs. State of Bihar 1988 SCC 734[Para 2]
9
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs Union of India and Ors supra
10
Common Cause (A Registered Society) v Union of India; Supreme Court of India, 25 February 2014

11
going straight on, in a north-easterly direction, subsisting on water and air, until his body sinks to rest. A
Brahman having got rid of his body by one of those modes (i.e. drowning, precipitating burning or
starving) practiced by the great sages, is exalted in the world of Brahman, free from sorrow and fear".
Two commentators of Manu12, Govardhana and Kulluka, say that a man may undertake the
mahaprasthana (great departure) on a journey which ends in death, when he is incurably diseased or meets
with a great misfortune, and that, because it is taught in the Sastras, it is not opposed to the Vedic rules
which forbid suicide

International Scenario
According to Article 5 of the United Nations Human Rights charter and Article 3 of the European
Convection of Human Rights
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
It means that no human being must be subjected to torture, suffering and pain even medically. If he is
kept alive and is suffering from dire pain then he should be relieved of his pain by giving him a dignified
and peaceful death. Keeping a person alive and the state of suffering is not only a violation of human right
but also not ethically and morally right. Therefore, euthanasia must be legalized.

Belgium

The Belgian parliament legalized euthanasia on 28 May 2002. A survey published in 2010 reported that in
almost all cases, unbearable physical sufferings were reported. A psychologist must also determine the
patient's maturity to make the decision. The amendment emphasizes that the patient's request be
voluntary.

Canada

Voluntary active euthanasia is legal in Canada for all people over the age of 18 who have a terminal
illness that has progressed to the point where natural death is "reasonably foreseeable." To prevent suicide
tourism, only people eligible to claim Canadian health insurance may use it.

In Carter v Canada(Attorney General) 13the Supreme Court held that Section 241(b)14 and s. 14 15of the
Criminal Code unjustifiably infringe s. 7 16of the Charter and are of no force or effect to the extent that
they prohibit physician-assisted death for a competent adult person who

(1) Clearly consents to the termination of life and

(2) Has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that
causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.

11
(See: Laws of Manu, translated by George Buhler, Sacred Books of the East edited by F.Max Muller,
(1967 Reprint) Vol.25, page 204, J Shlokas31 ad 32)
12
SeeMedhatithi's commentary on Manu
13
2015 SCC 5
14
Aids or abets a person to suicide
15
A person cannot consent to death
16
Right to life, liberty & security of a person

12
Colombia

In a 6-3 decision, Colombia's Constitutional Court ruled in 1997 that "no person can be held criminally
responsible for taking the life of a terminally ill patient who has given clear authorization to do so.

Luxembourg

The country's parliament passed a bill legalizing euthanasia on 20 February 2008 in the first reading with
30 of 59 votes in favour. On 19 March 2009, the bill passed the second reading, making Luxembourg the
third European Union country, after the Netherlands and Belgium, to decriminalize euthanasia.
Terminally ill patients will have the option of euthanasia after receiving the approval of two doctors and a
panel of experts.

Mexico

In Mexico, active euthanasia is illegal but since 7 January 2008 the law allows the terminally ill —or
closest relatives, if unconscious— to refuse medication or further medical treatment to end life (also
known as passive euthanasia) in Mexico City, in the central state of Aguascalientes (since 6 April 2009)
and, since 1 September 2009, in the Western state of Michoacán. A similar law extending the same
provisions at the national level has been approved by the senate and an initiative decriminalizing active
euthanasia has entered the same legislative chamber on 13 April 2007.

Netherlands

In 2002, the Netherlands passed a law legalizing euthanasia including physician-assisted suicide. This law
codifies the twenty-year-old convention of not prosecuting doctors who have committed euthanasia in
very specific cases, under very specific circumstances. The Ministry of Public Health, Wellbeing and
Sports claims that this practice "allows a person to end their life in dignity after having received every
available type of palliative care." The United Nations has reviewed and commented on the Netherlands
euthanasia law. In September 2004 the Groningen Protocol was developed, which sets out criteria to be
met for carrying out child euthanasia without the physician being prosecuted.

Sweden

Passive euthanasia was deemed legal after a landmark court ruling in 2010. This means a health care
professional can legally cease life support upon request from a patient if they understand the
consequences stated by their health care provider, however administering a lethal substance is illegal.

United Kingdom

Although euthanasia is not legal in UK but still it was held that, “The House of Lords affirmed the
decisions of a Family Division Court and the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, permitting physicians to
withhold medical treatment from an insensate patient in a persistent vegetative state, provided that the
patient's death will imminently follow the removal of life-sustaining treatment. In this situation, the
medical treatments to be withheld included artificial feeding and antibiotics to fight infection. The court

13
reasoned that this afforded the patient a peaceful and dignified death without suffering, and fulfilled the
course of nature.”17 Thus in this case euthanasia was allowed.

Hence forth euthanasia must be permitted to Rahul and legalize euthanasia in India with strict safeguards.

Issue II:

Whether Rahul should be allowed to be placed in cryonic suspension on his demise in furtherance of the
order of the UK Court.

Cryonics is the low-temperature preservation (usually at −196°C) of people who cannot be sustained by
contemporary medicine, with the hope that resuscitation and restoration to full health may be possible in
the far future. Cryopreservation of humans is not reversible with present technology; cryonicists hope that
medical advances will someday allow cryopreserved people to be revived. Cryonics procedures can only
begin after legal death, and cryonics "patients" are considered legally dead. Cryonics procedures ideally
begin within minutes of cardiac arrest, and use cryoprotectants to prevent ice formation during
cryopreservation.

Recently a UK court allowed a 14 year old girl to cryopreservation after her demise.18

The court respecting her last wishes allowed her to be cryopreserved as she was only 14 years and
suffered from a rare type of cancer.

Thus respecting Rahul’s last wish this court should also allow him to be cryopreserved on his demise as
the disease from which he is suffering has no cure and in future there is certainty of its cure.

Issue III:

If Reema assisted Rahul die, would it attract Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Reema is the lawfully wedded wife of Rahul, who is a strong woman, never left Rahul’s side. Rahul also
has given his consent on further medical treatment by signing the living will. Thus Reema has also acted
in the benefit of Rahul as she couldn’t see Rahul suffer from the ALS disease and thus with the hope that
one day Rahul could be revived by now cryopreservation she requested the court for euthanasia. Thus not
attracting Section 300 of IPC, 1860. Reema has followed due procedure of law for permitting euthanasia
for Rahul. And also Rahul has signed the living will while he was in the state of sound mind.

17
Airedale v Bland [1993] 2 W.L.R. 316:[1993] A.C. 789
18
JS v M&F Case No- FD16P00526 [2016] EWHC2859(Fam) 10 November 2016

14
Prayer

The appellant Prays before this Hon’ble Supreme Court as follows:

(1) To grant Euthanasia for Rahul and end his suffering by giving him a dignified death.
(2) To uphold the order of UK court and allow Rahul to be kept in Cryopreservation on his demise.
(3) To uphold the dignity of an individual and recognize right to die under the scope of Article 21,
Constitution of India under strict guidelines.
(4) To decriminalize sections 306 and 309, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
(5) To also recognize “Living Will” as a legal document.
(6) Any other judgement deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court and uphold the principles of natural
justice and in the interest of the society.

15