Introduction:
In a significant development concerning the enforcement of passive euthanasia directives in India, the Bombay High Court has addressed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Dr. Nikhil Datar, a Mumbai-based gynaecologist, alongside two professors. The PIL sought the implementation of the Supreme Court’s directives from the landmark case, Common Cause v. Union of India (2023), which streamlined the procedure for passive euthanasia and emphasised the right to die with dignity through Advance Medical Directives (AMD), commonly known as living wills.
Arguments Presented:
Petitioners’ Perspective:
Dr. Datar and his co-petitioners highlighted the absence of a robust mechanism in Maharashtra for the execution of living wills, despite the Supreme Court’s clear guidelines. They emphasised that the lack of appointed custodians for storing living wills and the non-establishment of secondary medical boards hindered the citizens’ ability to exercise their fundamental right to die with dignity. The petitioners argued that without these mechanisms, the directives laid out by the Supreme Court remain ineffective, leaving individuals, especially senior citizens, vulnerable and without recourse.
State Government’s Response:
The Maharashtra government, represented by the Government Pleader, informed the court of the steps taken towards compliance. A Government Resolution dated December 12, 2024, was cited, which constituted Primary and Secondary Medical Boards in alignment with the Supreme Court’s directives. Additionally, the government stated that competent officials had been appointed as custodians of medical directives and assured the court that a mechanism for the quick retrieval of documents would be established within three months.
Court’s Observations and Judgment:
The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M.S. Karnik, acknowledged the state’s submissions but emphasised the necessity for full compliance with the Supreme Court’s directives. The court disposed of the PIL, granting the state government four months to implement all aspects of the Supreme Court’s guidelines effectively. Furthermore, the court provided liberty to the petitioners to challenge the Government Resolution if they found any discrepancies or non-compliance in the future.
Conclusion:
The Bombay High Court’s intervention underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the right to die with dignity, as enshrined in the Constitution. By directing the Maharashtra government to expedite the implementation of mechanisms for living wills, the court ensures that citizens can make informed decisions about their end-of-life care. This development marks a pivotal step towards respecting individual autonomy and aligning state practices with constitutional mandates.