Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea To Examine 30-Yr-Old's Health Condition For Administration Of Passive Euthanasia
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea moved by a 30 years old man seeking constitution of a Medical Board to examine his health condition for administration of passive euthanasia.Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected the plea moved by the man who suffered head injuries after falling from the fourth floor of his paying guest house and has been confined to his bed since 2013 due to...
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea moved by a 30 years old man seeking constitution of a Medical Board to examine his health condition for administration of passive euthanasia.
Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected the plea moved by the man who suffered head injuries after falling from the fourth floor of his paying guest house and has been confined to his bed since 2013 due to diffuse axonal injury with Permanent Vegetative state, Quadriplegia with 100% disability.
The plea stated that the man's family had consulted various doctors and have been informed that there was no scope of his recovery, that he had not responded for the last 11 years and had developed deep and large bed sores which have caused further infection.
It was further stated that his family had lost all hope for his recovery and were not in a position to take care of him due to old age.
Rejecting the plea, the court referred to various judgments of the Supreme Court wherein it was held that active euthanasia is legally impermissible.
Justice Prasad observed that the man was not being kept alive mechanically and that he was able to sustain himself without any extra external aid.
The court noted that the man was living and no one, including a physician, is permitted to cause death of another person by administering any lethal drug, even if the objective is to relieve the patient from pain and suffering.
“The Petitioner is not on any life support system and the Petitioner is surviving without any external aid. While the Court sympathises with the parents, as the Petitioner is not terminally ill, this Court cannot intervene and allow consideration of a prayer that is legally untenable,” the court said.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Mr. Manish Jain, Mr. Vikas Kumar Verma, Ms. Chelsi, Mr. Anchal, Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr. Shanky Jain, Advocates
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Kushagra Kumar and Mr. Abhinav Bhardwaj, Advocates for UoI; Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, Panel Counsel for AIIMS with Mr. Kautilya Birat, Advocate for R-2; Mr. Udit Malik, ASC with Mr. Vishal Chanda, Advocates for R-4 and 5
Title: HARISH RANA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 757