Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India (2018)

Case Name: Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India (2018)

Citation: (2018) 5 SCC 1

Court: Supreme Court of India

Date: 9 March 2018

Bench: CJI Dipak Misra, Justice A.K. Sikri, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Ashok Bhushan

Introduction

The judgment in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) is considered one of the most important decisions in Indian constitutional law because it recognized that the right to die with dignity is part of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Before this judgment, there was confusion regarding whether a person had the right to refuse life-support treatment.[1]

In this case, the Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia and also recognised the legality of living wills (advance medical directives). This means a person can decide in advance that if they become terminally ill or enter a permanent vegetative state, they do not want artificial life support.

Earlier, in the Aruna Shanbaug case (2011), the Court had said that passive euthanasia could only be properly regulated through legislation. However, in this case the Court changed that position and held that the Supreme Court itself can issue guidelines until Parliament makes a law.[2]

The judgment is important because it focuses on human dignity, personal autonomy, bodily integrity and informed consent. At the same time, the Court also tried to balance individual choice with the State’s duty to protect life by creating safeguards to prevent misuse.

This decision also influenced medical ethics and hospital practices regarding end-of-life care in India. Later, in 2023, the Supreme Court simplified the procedures relating to living wills to make them more practical.[3]

Facts of the Case

In 2005, an NGO called Common Cause filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court. The organisation requested the Court to declare that the Right to Life under Article 21 also includes the Right to Die with Dignity.

The petitioner also requested the Court to allow terminally ill patients and patients in permanent vegetative condition to make living wills, which would allow them to refuse unwanted medical treatment such as ventilators or artificial feeding.[4]

The petition pointed out that many patients suffering from incurable diseases are kept alive through artificial support systems even when there is no hope of recovery. This often leads to unnecessary suffering and loss of dignity.

The petitioner relied on the earlier Supreme Court judgment in Gian Kaur v State of Punjab (1996) where the Court observed that the right to die with dignity may form part of the right to live with dignity in certain situations.[5]

The case was first heard by a three-judge bench. Because there was some conflict between the Gian Kaur judgment and the Aruna Shanbaug judgment, the matter was referred to a Constitution Bench in 2014. Finally, a five-judge bench delivered the judgment in 2018.[6]

The Court also considered international cases such as the UK case Airedale NHS Trust v Anthony Bland and laws relating to living wills in the United States to understand how other countries deal with such issues.[7]

Legal Issues

The Supreme Court considered the following main questions:

Whether the Right to Life under Article 21 includes the Right to Die with Dignity.

Whether passive euthanasia should be allowed in India.

Whether a person can legally make a living will regarding medical treatment.

Whether only Parliament can make such laws or whether the Supreme Court can issue guidelines.

Arguments of the Parties

Arguments of the Petitioner

The petitioner argued that the Right to Life does not only mean physical survival but also includes the right to live with dignity. Therefore, when a person is terminally ill and suffering without hope of recovery, forcing them to continue life artificially violates their dignity.

The petitioner also argued that every person has the right to control their own body, including the right to refuse medical treatment. This idea is connected to personal liberty and privacy.

The petitioner also referred to foreign judgments and laws to show that many countries recognise the right of patients to refuse life-support treatment.

Another important argument was that clear guidelines were necessary so that doctors and family members would not fear criminal liability when withdrawing life support according to the patient’s wishes.[8]

Arguments of the Respondent (Union of India)

The Union of India argued that recognising passive euthanasia without legislation could be dangerous because it may be misused, especially against vulnerable patients.

The government also argued that the Right to Life cannot include the Right to Die. They suggested that if passive euthanasia is to be allowed, it should be done only through proper legislation after detailed discussion.

The respondents also argued that the State has a duty to protect life and therefore individual choice should not override this duty without proper safeguards.[9]

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the Right to Die with Dignity is part of Article 21.

The Court gave several important reasons:

First, the Court said that life under Article 21 means a life with dignity and not just biological existence. Therefore, forcing a person to remain alive through artificial means when there is no hope of recovery may violate dignity.

Second, the Court clarified the difference between active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia involves taking steps to end life (which remains illegal). Passive euthanasia involves withdrawing life support when treatment is no longer useful. The Court held that passive euthanasia is legally permissible.

Third, the Court said that the right to refuse medical treatment already exists under the Constitution as part of personal liberty and bodily autonomy. Therefore, no separate law is required to recognise this right.

Fourth, the Court recognised living wills as a practical way to protect patient autonomy. It laid down detailed guidelines about how such directives should be made and implemented.[10]

The Court created safeguards such as:

Only a competent adult can make a living will.

The decision must be voluntary.

Medical boards must verify the condition.

Proper documentation must be maintained.

The directive can be withdrawn at any time.

The Court stated that these guidelines would remain applicable until Parliament passes a law.[11]

The Court also rejected the fear of misuse by saying that multiple checks and approvals would prevent abuse.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the petition partly and declared:

The Right to Die with Dignity is part of Article 21.

Passive euthanasia is legal in India.

Living wills are valid.

Guidelines were issued for implementation.

The contrary observations in Aruna Shanbaug were overruled to that extent.[12]

The Court also said that these rules would apply until Parliament makes a proper law.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment is very important because it places patient autonomy at the centre of medical decision-making.

It also helped doctors and hospitals develop proper procedures for end-of-life care. The decision also started discussions about improving legal and medical frameworks regarding terminal illness.

In 2023, the Supreme Court further simplified the procedure relating to living wills to make the process easier and more practical.[13]

Overall, the judgment strengthened the idea that dignity must be respected even at the end of life.

Critical Evaluation

This judgment is generally seen as progressive because it recognises human dignity and personal choice. The safeguards provided by the Court also reduce the risk of misuse.

However, some critics say that the procedures initially created were too complicated because they required approvals from multiple authorities. This could delay urgent medical decisions. The 2023 clarification tried to reduce these difficulties.[14]

Another criticism is that while foreign judgments helped the Court, Indian healthcare realities are different, especially because many people lack access to quality medical care.

The Court also maintained the distinction between active and passive euthanasia, but this distinction continues to be debated by legal scholars.

Despite these concerns, the judgment remains a major step forward in recognising dignity and autonomy in constitutional law.

Conclusion

The Common Cause judgment (2018) is a landmark decision which recognised that dignity is an essential part of life under Article 21. By allowing passive euthanasia and recognising living wills, the Supreme Court strengthened individual autonomy and patient rights.[15]

The judgment shows that the Constitution protects not only the right to live but also the right to live and die with dignity. At the same time, the Court ensured safeguards to prevent misuse.

Overall, this decision reflects a humane and balanced approach which respects both individual freedom and social responsibility.

Reference(S):

[1] Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1

[2] Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1

[3] Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1

[4] Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1

[5] Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 648

[6] Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1

[7] Airedale NHS Trust v. Anthony Bland, [1993] AC 789 (HL)

[8] Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1

[9] Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1

[10] Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1

[11] Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1

[12] Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 454; Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1

[13] Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 79 (Jan. 24, 2023)

[14] Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 79 (Jan. 24, 2023)

[15] Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1