MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER PETITIONER

TEAM CODE: T-8

1
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr. No. Table of Contents Page No.

1. List of Abbreviations 3

2. Index of Authorities 4

4. Statement of Jurisdiction 5

5. Statement of Facts 6-7

6. Statement of Issues 8

7. Summary of Arguments 9

8. Arguments Advanced 10-35

9. Prayer 36

2
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Sr. No. Abbreviations Full-form

1. A.I.R. All India Reporter

2. SC Supreme Court

3. SCC Supreme Court Cases

4. Hon’ble Honorable

5. V./Vs. Versus

6. PIL Public Interest Litigation

7. PVS Persistent Vegetative State

8. UN United Nations

9. UNGA United Nations General Assembly

10. UNHRC United Nations Human Rights Council

11. NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

12. Ors. Others

13. Anr Another

14. UOI Union of Indiana

15. COI Constitution of Indiana

16. IPC Indiana Penal Code

17. PUDR People Union of Democratic Rights

18. HC High Court

19. & And

3
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. J Mohapatra & Company v Orissa, 1984 (4) SCC 103

2. Boddhisattwa Gautum v Subra Chakraborty 1996 SCC (1) 490
3. S.P. Gupta vs Union of India 1981 Supp SCC 87
4. Hussainara Khatoon vs State of Bihar 1980 SCC (CRI) 40
5. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 409
6. Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardichand 1979 3 SCC 327
7. Lakshmi Kant Pandey v UOI, 1987 (1) SCC 66
8. Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v UOI, 1993 (4) SCC 441
9. Vishaka v State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241)
10. Vineet Narain v UOI, 1998 (1) SCC 226
11. Common Cause v UOI (2018) 5 SCC 1
12. PUDR v UOI, 1982 SCC (L&S) 262
13. Janata Dal v HS Chowdhary, 1991 SCC (3) 756
14. Naresh Marotrao Sakhre v. Union of India, 1996(1)BOMCR92,
15. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 1963 SCC 0 1295
16. Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, (1975) 2 SCC 148
17. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India and another, (1997) 1 SCC 301
18. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 US 261 (1990): 110 S.Ct. 2841
(1990)
19. Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra, 1986 SCC ONLINE BOM 278
20. State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Umed Ram Sharma and others, 1986 (2) SCC
68,
21. R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, 1970 SCR (3) 530
22. Airedale NHS Trust v Bland 1993 AC 789
23. Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, 2011 SCC 4 524
24. K.S. Puttaswamy and another v. Union of India and others, (2017) 10 SCC 1
25. M. Nagaraj and others v. Union of India and others, (2006) 8 SCC 212
26. Vacco v. Quill, 1997 SCC OnLine US SC 80
27. Hass v Switzerland, App no. 31322/07

LIST OF STATUTES

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860, (India).

3. The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. No. 10 Of 2017

4. The Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 Act No. 42 Of 1994

4
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana has the jurisdiction in present matter under Article 32 of
the Constitution of Indiana which reads as follows:

“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part:

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in
the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever
may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.”

5
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

The Republic of Indiana, a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic nation with a population
exceeding 1.4 billion, has the world's lengthiest Constitution, which serves as the supreme law.
Aligned with the laws of the Union of India, the Constitution and all laws of Indiana are in Pari
Materia. Part III of this Constitution guarantees the Fundamental Rights to citizens and they are
enforceable in courts. Presently, the nation is facing a profound ethical and legal dilemma
concerning "Active Euthanasia". Active Euthanasia means the intentional termination of an
individual's life to alleviate suffering. This contentious issue has sparked global discussions on
morality, medical ethics, and legal intricacies.

EVENTS

An elderly couple, Santosh, aged 74, and Sumitra, aged 70, residents of the city of Tumba, found
themselves facing significant challenges in January 2021 when Santosh was diagnosed with skin
cancer, followed by Sumitra's diagnosis of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) in September
2021. Since Santosh and Sumitra didn't have kids or nearby relatives to help them out, things got
even tougher as they were both retired teachers and had to use their own money for medical bills.
Despite Santosh's health struggles, he religiously accompanied Sumitra to Lok Nayak Hospital for
her treatment, which not only proved physically taxing but also financially draining. Over two
years, they expended over 20 Lakh on medical expenses. Unfortunately, Sumitra's condition
continued to deteriorate, and the expensive treatments yielded little improvement. With their
financial resources depleted and Sumitra experiencing considerable pain and loss of functionality
due to ALS, she expressed a desire for active euthanasia to relieve her suffering and not burden
her husband further. Their plea for active euthanasia was brought before Dr. Vinay, Sumitra's
attending physician. However, Dr. Vinay, citing the absence of legislation or legal provisions for
such measures, declined their request.

6
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

PROCEEDING

The couple approached the 'We Care' Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO), which focuses on
social welfare, to discuss their concerns about active euthanasia. After hearing their story and
realizing that Sumitra's treatment was not helping and causing her more suffering, the NGO
decided to share their story in a newspaper article to raise awareness. The article gained national
attention, and people from across the country reached out to the NGO, sharing similar experiences
and calling for specific laws or guidelines on active euthanasia. Recognizing the public interest in
the matter, the NGO filed a Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
before the Supreme Court.

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

Sr. Year Event

No.

1. January Mr. Santosh diagnosed with Skin Cancer

2021

2. September Mrs. Sumitra, Santosh’s wife diagnosed with Amyotrophic

2021 Lateral Sclerosis

3. 2021- Santosh and Sumitra expended nearly 20 lakhs during these years
2023 on their treatment

4. 2023 Sumitra expressed her desire for Active Euthanasia and

approached her attending physician, Mr. Vinay with such a
request which he declined.

5. 2023 Santosh and Sumitra approached ‘We Care’ an NGO with their
concern. The NGO published an article about their story that
attracted people’s attention and the NGO received many letters
and messages about the need for legislation and guidelines for
Active euthanasia.

6. 2024 After recognizing the public interest in this matter, the NGO filed
a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Indiana.

7
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1

Whether the Public Interest Litigation is maintainable under Article 32 of the constitution of
Indiana?

ISSUE 2

Whether the Right to Die comes under the ambit of the Right to live with dignity under Article
21?

ISSUE 3

Whether active Euthanasia should be legalized in Indiana or not?

ISSUE 4

Whether the prevailing conditions of active euthanasia are affecting the mental health of the
people?

8
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

SUMMARY ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the Public Interest Litigation is maintainable under Article 32 of the

constitution of Indiana?
The counsel for the petitioner humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that the Public Interest
Litigation is maintainable under Article 32 of the constitution of Indiana on the basis of the
principle of relaxed locus standi and the violation of fundamental rights. This PIL is not only
maintainable, but far away from the microscope of scrutiny.

2. Whether the Right to Die comes under the ambit of the Right to live with dignity under
Article 21?
The counsel for the petitioner humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that the Right to Die
must come under the ambit of the Right to live with dignity under Article 21, considering the
concept of the patients being terminally ill, prolonging their suffering only extends their deep-
rooted agony. The petitioners also insist that according to Article 141, the doctrine of stare
decisis must be considered by this Hon’ble Court.

3. Whether active Euthanasia should be legalized in Indiana or nott?

The counsel for the petitioner humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that active Euthanasia
should be legalized in Indiana, based on the contention that since passive euthanasia is
legalized according to Common Cause v UOI, Active Euthanasia must also be legalized by
this Hon’ble Court. The petitioner has also relied upon the legality of active euthanasia in
several countries as a basis for it to be legalized in India as well.

4. Whether the prevailing conditions of active euthanasia are affecting the mental health of
the people?
The counsel for the petitioner humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that the prevailing
conditions of active euthanasia are indeed affecting the mental health of the people, according
to the statistics pointed out by the petitioner in the pleadings. The petitioner has also included
international charters such as UNHRC and UNGA for reliance.

9
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the Public Interest Litigation is maintainable under Article 32 of the

constitution of Indiana?

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS

Justice is an indivisible concept, one must never be deprived of it. To ensure justice the constitution
has envisaged such noble principles which ensure this concept of justice.

The range and scope of Public Interest Litigation, (hereinafter referred to as PIL), is vast as it is a
mechanism to agitate any socio-economic public issue before the court, which can be brought
within the legal and constitutional mould.

The Supreme Court has time and again held that it cannot remain a mute spectator when
constitutional rights are violated, especially when such rights have gained universal recognition
and acceptance. The judicial role in a democracy is not only to decide the dispute before the court
but to uphold the rule of law and to ensure access to justice for everyone. The Supreme Court acts
as the only bridging gap between the law and life and that is the primary role of the court.

PIL is the result of judicial activism. The basic reason for the growth of PIL in Indiana is
bureaucratic unresponsiveness to public needs. The petitioner contends before this Hon’ble Court
that this court has the appropriate jurisdiction for this petition to be maintained, and the petitioner
shall be relying on the precedents wherein this very court has passed guidelines in the interest of
justice. This petition is maintained under article 32 as a PIL, as explained and pleaded by the
petitioner under a two-fold structure as follows:

Firstly, the principle of locus and the inherent rule of the apex court of the country concerning the
said interest in the present petition, and the rules which have developed through years of judicial
activism,
And; Secondly, the gross and significant violations of fundamental rights, more specifically, article
21, and the ambit of article 21, as explained in the further issues.

10
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

The Petitioners have come before this Hon’ble Court to seek relief and an appropriate remedy for
the present case. In this present case, the issue is whether this PIL is maintainable u/a 32 of the
Constitution of Indiana. The petitioners asserts that this PIL is indeed maintainable based on the
specific contentions and arguments which will be set out below:

1.1 Locus Standi

The scenario in cases of PIL in regards to locus standi appears less complex in comparison to
situations involving private litigation. Courts have contributed in bringing about a simpler, more
flexible and wider rule for governing the aspect of locus standi in cases of PIL. The locus standi
in cases of PIL is based on public welfare thereby abiding by the fundamental principles of the
Constitution, to advance the cause of the community, disadvantaged groups and individuals, or the
public interest.

Even when there is an apprehension that the case is triable, the petition is liable to be heard on its
merits. In the present case, the petitioner submits that there is a prima facie case that the petitioner
has an interest in the benefit of the public, for the welfare of the people.

Lately, the courts, have shown a good deal of flexibility in matters of legal standing. The rule of
locus standi has assumed much wider dimensions, in the day to expand its horizons of socio-
economic justice and welfare of the state. So much so that the courts have sanctioned PIL may be
espoused through a writ petition by someone even though he may not be directly injured or affected
by it, or may have any interest in the matter.

The petitioner comes to the court to espouse a public cause. The expression PIL means a legal
action initiated in a court for enforcement of public interest, as in the case of the present petition.

Emphasizing the need for PIL in India, Bhagwati, J, observed:“We would therefore hold that any
member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress for
public injury arising from breach of public duty or violation of some provision of the constitution
or the law and seek enforcement of such public duty and observance of such constitutional or legal
provision.”

11
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Even in a case where a petitioner moves the Court in his private affairs of the subject matter of
litigation in the interest of justice reflecting the same approach as in a public interest litigation.

The Supreme Court has observed in J Mohapatra & Company v Orissa1, , that today “the law
concerning locus standi has considerably advanced and in the case of PIL, the petitioner himself
doesn't need to have a personal interest in the matter.”

Technicalities should not come in the way of the Court in granting relief in a PIL. The Supreme
Court has ruled that to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 32, the affected person doesn't need
to personally approach the court. The Court can itself take cognizance of the matter and proceed
suo moto or on a petition of any public-spirited individual or body- Bodhisattwa Gautam v.
Subhra Chakraborty (Ms)2

As the present case specifically deals with this public-spirited NGO, the present petition, is not
only maintainable but far from the scrutiny, as this petition stands for the numerous people
suffering from the same scenario, wherein no remedy is provided to them and their quality of life
is depleting due to this delay in justice.

In the case of S.P Gupta vs Union of India3, the Supreme Court observed that in India a large
number of persons are exploited and ignorant of their legal rights. These weaker sections of the
country are not in a position to approach the court for judicial remedy. So to provide justice to
these people, the principle of locus standi should be relaxed. It further held that whenever the legal
rights of a person or class of persons are violated and for any reason they cannot approach the
court, then any public-spirited person can file a petition on behalf of them under Articles 226 and
32 of the Indian Constitution in the high court and Supreme Court respectively.

The public interest litigations developed the concept of public interest standing which is a form to
widen the scope of the locus standi. Public Interest litigation demands objectivity, forensic skill,
procedural gamesmanship and socio-legal perception.

1 1984 (4) SCC 103

2 1996 SCC (1) 490
3 1981 Supp SCC 87

12
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

The case of Hussainara Khatoon vs State of Bihar4, was one of the earliest cases wherein this
Hon’ble Court relaxed the nexus of locus standi.

Public interest litigation acquired a new dimension - namely that of 'epistolary jurisdiction' with
the decision in the case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration5, It was initiated by a letter that
was written by a prisoner lodged in jail to a Judge of the Supreme Court. The prisoner complained
of a brutal assault committed by a Head Warder on another prisoner. The Court treated that letter
as a writ petition, and, while issuing various directions, opined that:

"...technicalities and legal niceties are no impediment to the court entertaining even an informal
communication as a proceeding for habeas corpus if the basic facts are found".

[Emphasis supplied]

In Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand6, the Court recognized the locus standi of a group
of citizens who sought directions against the local Municipal Council for removal of open drains
that caused stench as well as diseases. The Court, recognizing the right of the group of citizens,
asserted that if the:
"...centre of gravity of justice is to shift as indeed the Preamble to the Constitution mandates, from
the traditional individualism of locus standi to the community orientation of public interest
litigation, the court must consider the issues as there is need to focus on the ordinary men."
[Emphasis supplied]

1.2 Remedy under the present petition

The Constitution of Indiana recognizes as fundamental rights many of the individual rights that
comprise the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These include the right to life,
equality, the freedom of speech and expression and the right to seek judicial redress before the
Supreme Court and 21 High Courts of Indiana for enforcement and protection of these rights.

4 1980 SCC (CRI) 40

5 (1978) 4 SCC 409,
6 1979 3 SCC 327

13
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

The present petition by way of its prayer clause seeks some guidelines from this court to ensure
that there is legal backing to the same. The people have suffered, and are continuing to suffer, even
though there has been a bill pending in the parliament since 2016, there is no conclusive action.

Active Euthanasia is one such prism of life where time is of utmost importance. Justice delayed is
justice denied. Enforcement of one’s fundamental right cannot result in the violation of another.
The unequals can’t be treated equally.

The court has issued guidelines and directions in quite a few cases, some of these cases for the
sake of this court are as follows:

Lakshmi Kant Pandey v UOI7, - where guidelines for the adoption of minor children by foreigners
were laid down.

Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v UOI8, - Laid down norms and guidelines for
the transfer for High Court Judges

Vishaka v State of Rajasthan9, where elaborate guidelines have been laid down to discourage
sexual harassment of women at workplaces

Vineet Narain v UOI10, - where the court has laid down guidelines to ensure the independence of
vigilance commission to reduce corruption among government servants.

Common Cause v UOI11, where in the court issued directions for revamping the system of blood
banks in the country.

7 1987 (1) SCC 66

8 1993 (4) SCC 441
9 (1997) 6 SCC 241
10 1998 (1) SCC 226
11 (2018) 5 SCC 1

14
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

The petitioners relying upon the above-stated precedent assert before this Hon’ble Court there
must be guidelines laid down by this Hon’ble Court pertaining to the concept of Active euthanasia,
considering the grievances and problems of the petitioners.

Bhagwati J, in the case of PUDR v UOI12, emphasized that PIL is a strategic arm of the legal aid
movement, which is intended to bring justice within the reach of the poor masses who constitute
the low visibility of humanity.

In the case of Janata Dal v HS Chowdhary13, a very significant aspect of PIL is shed light upon,
The Court observed, “ The strict rule of locus standi applicable to private litigation is relaxed and
a broad rule is evolved which gives the right to locus standi to any member of the public acting
bonafide and having sufficient interest in instituting an action for redressal of public wrong or
public injury.”

Even an apprehension of the merits of the case makes this petition not only maintainable but far
away from the scope of scrutiny. The petitioner asserts that there is merit and there is a triable case.

Hence if it pleases this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice, based on the precedents and articles
cited above, the petitioners submit that this petition as PIL is maintainable under Article 32.

12 1982 SCC (L&S) 262

13 1991 SCC (3) 756,

15
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2. Whether the Right to Die comes under the ambit of the Right to live with dignity under
Article 21?
The Petitioner hereby humbly submits before this Hon'ble Court that the Right to Die should come
under the ambit of the Right to live with dignity under Article 21.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Protection of life and personal liberty

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established
by law.

The petitioner will be addressing this issue in a quadratic structure.

Firstly, as to why right to die must be fundamentally included under the ambit of article 21;

And; Secondly; discussing the distinction between suicide and and suicide;

Thirdly; the petitioner discusses why right to die should be a fundamental right.
And; Lastly, the petitioners explain the doctrine of double effect.

2.1 Why must right to die be included under the ambit of Article 21?

The cause of action of the present petitioners, is the case pertaining to terminally ill persons or
those suffering from chronic diseases must not be subjected to cruel treatments. Denying them the
right to die extends their suffering, the end result of their chronic illness is going to cause them
suffering, but prolonging their suffering causes a deep rooted trauma, that by the end of their life,
they are completely devoid of their will to live.

Petitioners specifically points out that the decision about whether to continue living in such
conditions is among the most important that can be made. Just as people value having control over
where to live, which occupation to pursue, whom to marry, and whether to have children, so people
value having control over whether to continue living when quality of life deteriorates. That is why
the right to life and the right to die are not two rights, but two aspects or descriptions of the same
right. The right to life is the right to decide whether one will or will not continue living. The right
to die is the right to decide whether one will die (when one could continue living). If the right to
life were only a right to decide to continue living and did not also include a right to decide not to

16
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

continue living, then it would be a duty to live rather than a right to life. The idea that there is a
duty to continue living, regardless of how bad life has become, is an implausible one indeed.

2.2 Distinction of Euthanasia and Suicide

Suicide is the act of purposeful taking one’s own life via self-inflicted means for a variety of
reasons, such as disappointment or depression. Euthanasia, sometimes known as “mercy killing,”
is when a terminally ill person is killed by someone else who decides that the person’s quality of
life is so awful that it would be preferable for them to be dead for medical reasons.

In the case of Naresh Marotrao Sakhre v. Union of India14, , the court observed the difference
between Euthanasia and suicide. It was discussed that Suicide was an act of self-destruction, to
terminate one’s own life without the aid or assistance of any other human agency whereas
euthanasia being different as it involves the intervention of a human agency to end one’s life. This
mercy killing is from nowhere covered in section 309 of Indiana Penal code which states that;

2.3 Right to die - why it should be a fundamental right

In the case of Common Cause v UOI15, it is set out that "The right to life and liberty as envisaged
under Article 21 of the Constitution is meaningless unless it encompasses within its sphere
individual dignity. With the passage of time, this Court has expanded the spectrum of Article 21
to include within it the right to live with dignity as a component of the right to life and liberty".

It is asserted that every individual is entitled to take his/her decision about the continuance or
discontinuance of life when the process of death has already commenced and he/she has reached
an irreversible permanent progressive state where death is not far away. It is contended that each
individual has an inherent right to die which is an inextricable facet of Article 21 of the
Constitution. That apart, it is set forth that the right to die sans pain and suffering is fundamental
to one‘s bodily autonomy and such integrity does not remotely accept any effort that puts the
individual on life support without any ray of hope.

14 1994 SCC ONLINE BOM 384

15 (2018) 5 SCC 1

17
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

It is put forth that the concept of sustenance of individual autonomy inheres in the right of privacy
and also comes within the fundamental conception of liberty. To sustain the stand of privacy,
reliance has been placed on the decisions in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and others16,

In the case of Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another17, and People’s Union for Civil
Liberties v. Union of India and another18,. Inspiration has also been drawn from the decision of
the United States in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health19,: It is averred that due
to the advancement of modern medical technology about medical science and respiration, a
situation has been created where the dying process of the patient is unnecessarily prolonged
causing distress and agony to the patient as well as to the near and dear ones and, consequently,
the patient is in a persistent vegetative state thereby allowing free intrusion.

In the case of Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra20, , the petitioner endured multiple
brain injuries as a result of an accident which ultimately led to mental imbalance and later, he was
found to be suffering from schizophrenia. Also, there was an instance when he tried to commit
suicide for which he was even tried under section 309 of the Indiana Penal Code. The Bombay
High Court held that every right has both, its positive and negative aspects and the negative aspects
of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution i.e., the right to life includes
the right to die. The Court went to the extent of invalidating Section 309 of the IPC and held it to
be unconstitutional as it was violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. In this case, the
Court by citing numerous instances where a person might desire to end his/her life finally came up
with the opinion that the right to die was not unconstitutional rather it was just abnormal and
uncommon.

Right to life and liberty as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution is meaningless unless it
encompasses within its sphere individual dignity. With the passage of time, the Supreme Court
through its various judgements has expanded the spectrum of Article 21 to include within it the
right to live with dignity as component of right to life and liberty.

16 1963 SCC 0 1295.

17 (1975) 2 SCC 148
18 (1997) 1 SCC 301
19 497 US 261 (1990).
20 1986 SCC ONLINE BOM 278

18
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

In the nine-Judge Bench decision in K.S. Puttaswamy and another v. Union of India and others21,
, dignity has been reaffirmed to be a component under the said fundamental right. Human dignity
is beyond definition. It may at times defy description. To some, it may seem to be in the world of
abstraction and some may even perversely treat it as an attribute of egotism or accentuated
eccentricity.

That is why, the Constitution Bench in M. Nagaraj and others v. Union of India and others22, ,
lays down: It is the duty of the State not only to protect the human dignity but to facilitate it by
taking positive steps in that direction. No exact definition of human dignity exists. It refers to the
intrinsic value of every human being, which is to be respected. It cannot be taken away.

In the State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Umed Ram Sharma and others23, , wherein it
has been observed that the right to life embraces not only physical existence but also the quality
of life as understood in its richness and fullness within the ambit of the Constitution.

The petitioners hence state that on the basis of precedents stated above, it is the humble submission
of the petitioner that right to die must be included under the ambit of article 21.

2.4 The doctrine of Double Effect

Considering the brief factual and historical backdrop of the case, the petitioners state that the
doctrine (or principle) of double effect is often invoked to explain the permissibility of an action
that causes a serious harm, such as the death of a human being, as a side effect of promoting some
good end. According to the principle of double effect, sometimes it is permissible to cause a harm
as an unintended and merely foreseen side effect (or “double effect”) of bringing about a good
result even though it would not be permissible to cause such a harm as a means to bringing about
the same good end.

Petitioners contend that the term and concept of Euthanasia can be understood as the process of
ending the life of a terminally ill patient suffering from the agony or pain of illness.

21 (2017) 10 SCC 1
22 (2006) 8 SCC 212
23 1986 (2) SCC 68

19
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Doctors can help the patient end their suffering by withdrawing life-support or prescribing drugs
that relieve pain but hasten the patient’s death. In Vacco v. Quill24, , the US Supreme Court
observed that the doctrine of double effect can be used to give validity to the practice of prescribing
painkillers to patients in palliative care and also the practice of terminal sedation.

The Bombay High Court in Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra, 198625, placed
reliance on R.C. Cooper v. Union of India26, wherein it had been held that what is true of one
fundamental right is also true of another fundamental right and on the said premise, the Bombay
High Court had opined that it cannot be seriously disputed that fundamental rights have their
positive as well as negative aspects. Citing an example, it had stated that freedom of speech and
expression includes freedom not to speak and similarly, the freedom of association and movement
includes freedom not to join any association or move anywhere and, accordingly, it stated that
logically it must follow that the right to live would include the right not to live, i.e., right to die or
to terminate one‘s life.

It is contended by the petitioner that the case of Common Cause v UOI27 included the Right to
life including the right to life with human dignity" which means such right extends till the end of
human life and includes a dignified procedure of death. This right is part of the fundamental rights
conferred in Article 21. The right to die with dignity is a fundamental right. This judgement is the
current law for euthanasia in Indiana. The SC guidelines are meant to operate till a law is enacted
by the Parliament. The legislation making provisions for passive euthanasia for terminally ill
patients, The Medical Treatment of Terminally ill Patients (Protection of Patients and Medical
Practitioners) Bill, 2016, is still pending in Parliament. This bill was to be introduced in 2016, it is
2024, so it is the humble contention of the petitioners that right to die should be included under
the ambit of right to live with dignity, and this bill, since its pending at the very threshold, must
include these specifics as mentioned in this PIL.

24 1997 SCC OnLine US SC 80

25 SCC ONLINE BOM 278
26 1970 SCC 1 248
27 (2018) 5 SCC 1

20
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

The case of Common cause v UOI28, India’s very own guideline for passive euthanasia is the
extensively cited the judgment from the House of Lords in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland29, where
the withdrawal of life support for patient Anthony Bland was allowed. This case argues about
discontinuing treatment that confers no benefit at all. It was also held that the sanctity of life was
not absolute and that keeping patients (terminally ill or in PVS) alive would only prolong suffering.
And the decision must be in the best interest of the patient.

Similar to this present PIL, there’s a case in the country of Indiana, wherein, during the year of
2018, an elderly Mumbai couple wrote a letter to the President of Indiana, requesting permission
for active euthanasia because they were dissatisfied with their life.

Mrs Sumitra, the face of this PIL is afflicted with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, her condition is
worsening day by day as we speak and she wishes to not burden her husband financially since he
is suffering from cancer and also considering the futility of the treatment and unbearable pain she
seeks active euthanasia. This is just one case, similarly, there are numerous cases around the
country seeking the same relief but are denied based on no legislation or law being made regarding
the same.

It is the contention of the petitioner to include the right to die under the ambit of the right to live
with dignity under Article 21. Since the introduction of the Bill in 2016 it has been 8 years and yet
no relief has been brought hence petitioner seeks relief to include the right to die so that a peaceful
exit from life and the freedom of choice not to live particularly so under distressing conditions and
ill-health which lead to an irrecoverable state.This country is governed by the common law
doctrine and considers the precedents as the law. Article 141, envisaged in the constitution, which
grants the provision that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts
within the territory of Indiana. This article is governed by the doctrine of stare decisis.

As of now, there is no specific law which includes the right to die under the ambit of right to live,
and hence it is the humble contention of the petitioners to apply the doctrine of stare decisis and
include this particular right as contended by the petitioners

28 (2018) 5 SCC 1
29 1993 AC 789

21
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3. Whether Active Euthanasia should be legalized in Indiana or not?

The Petitioner hereby humbly submits before this Hon'ble Court that Active Euthanasia should be
legalized in Indiana.

For the sake and convenience of this court, it is quintessential to note that the word euthanasia,
with its origin in Greek words “eu” and “thanatos” means a “good death.” Euthanasia means
compassionately allowing, hastening, or causing the death of another.
The concept of euthanasia has multiple dimensions.

Active euthanasia means giving something to cause death, while passive euthanasia means
withdrawing the supportive measures.

Furthermore, another important facet of this petition majorly delves around the concept and
inherent difference between active and voluntary euthanasia.
Euthanasia can be voluntary if the patient has requested it, non-voluntary if the decision is made
without the patient’s consent, or involuntary if the decision is made against the patient’s wishes.
As the name suggests, voluntary euthanasia involves getting the patient's consent, but non-
voluntary euthanasia involves not getting the patient's consent. This can happen for several
reasons, such as when the patient is unconscious or incapable of giving consent.

3.1 Countries where Active Euthanasia is legal

For the purpose of factual understanding and a legitimate backing to this petition,, it is pertinent
to note that the countries where Active Euthanasia is legal. These countries are set out hereinunder
as follows:

1. Colombia: Euthanasia is legal in Colombia. It decriminalized euthanasia in 1997, and in

July 2021 a high court expanded this "right to dignified death" to those not suffering from
a terminal illness. Fewer than 200 people have opted for euthanasia in Colombia since
1997, according to official data. It is the first and only Latin American country to have

22
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

taken this step and one of just a few in the world, and did so despite being mostly Roman
Catholic.
2. Spain: Euthanasia is legal in Spain. On December 17, 2020, Spanish lawmakers legalised
euthanasia and assisted suicide for people with serious and incurable or debilitating
diseases who want to end their lives, making Spain the fourth country in the European
Union to take the step. The lower house of parliament's vote in a final reading was 202 in
favour, 141 against and 2 abstentions.
3. Netherlands: Euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands. In April 2002, the Netherlands became
the first country to legalise euthanasia and assisted suicide. It imposed a strict set of
conditions, according to it the patient must be suffering unbearable pain, their illness must
be incurable, and the demand must be made in “full consciousness” by the patient. Children
as young as 12 can request assisted dying, but parental consent is needed for those under
16.
4. Luxembourg: Euthanasia is legal in Luxembourg for adults. Patients must have an
incurable condition with constant, intolerable suffering and no prospect of improvement.
5. Canada: Euthanasia is legal in Canada. It allows euthanasia and assisted suicide for adults
suffering from “grievous and irremediable conditions” whose death is “reasonably
foreseeable”. In Quebec, only euthanasia is allowed.
6. Australia: Euthanasia is legal in Australia. The Australian state of Victoria passed
voluntary euthanasia laws in November 2017 after 20 years and 50 failed attempts. To
qualify for legal approval, a person must be an adult with decision-making capacity, and
must be a resident of Victoria, and have intolerable suffering due to an illness with a life
expectancy of less than six months, or 12 months of suffering from a neuro-degenerative
illness.
7. Belgium: Euthanasia is legal in Belgium. Euthanasia was legalized in Belgium in 2002 for
adults and in 2013 for children. As in most countries, those who choose euthanasia tend to
be those suffering through unbearable physical pain with no hope of recovery. Unlike many
countries, this is not a requirement. An adult who is not terminally ill may still request
euthanasia, although a one-month waiting period is required. Children must have a terminal
illness, be in "great pain", and fully understand the procedure. Belgium is also one of the
few countries that allow euthanasia in patients with mental illnesses.

23
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Indiana, being a country that follows the rules and regulations of the international charters, it is
important to note the international perspective while understanding why the present petition is here
before this Hon’ble Court. This court has the apparent jurisdiction and power to hear this petition,
as explained in issue no.1, and it is noteworthy to note this international aspect with respect to the
legitimacy of the concept of “Active Euthanasia.”

The petitioner submits before this Hon’ble court the position in our country, so as to reach a
decision in favour of the petitioner, since the legislature has time and again delayed the process of
formulating an important statue for the said issue.

It is the duty of the petitioner to state the position of Indiana, which is as follows:
In 2006, the Law Commission of Indiana in its 196th Report suggested that a law be enacted to
safeguard terminally ill individuals who refuse medical care, artificial feeding, or hydration from
being prosecuted under Section 309 of the Indiana Penal Code, 1860. Furthermore, clinicians who
obey such a patient’s decision, or who make such a decision for incompetent patients in their best
interests, shall be shielded from prosecution under Section 306 or Section 299 of the Code.
According to the report, the ‘patient’ must be suffering from a terminal illness, which is defined
as an illness, injury, or degeneration of a physical or mental condition that causes extreme pain
and suffering and, in the opinion of a reasonable medical expert, will inevitably result in the
patient’s untimely death.

The petitioner contends that this Hon’ble court has delved into this sensitive subjects, and these
precedents, are cited by the petitioner to rely and argue the said issue.

In the case of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of Indiana30, , the Supreme Court in 2011
had recognised passive euthanasia by which it had permitted withdrawal of life-sustaining
treatment from patients not in a position to make an informed decision.

30 2011 SCC 4 524

24
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

In the case of Common Cause v Union of India31, , the Supreme Court in the year 2018 recognised
the 'living will' made by terminally ill patients for passive euthanasia and laid down guidelines on
procedures to be adopted for it.

It is the contention of the Petitioners to this Hon’ble Court that since it has acknowledged a
patient’s right to passive euthanasia, active euthanasia should similarly be permitted. These two
are different in concept but the relief sought is similar and the petitioner has a case to be heard
along the merits of this argument.

3.2 Factors required to be considered to legalise Active Euthanasia in Indiana

1. Deprivation: Euthanasia respects the individual’s right to self-determination or his right to
privacy. Interference with that right can only be justified if it is to protect essential social
values, which is not the case where patients suffering unbearably at the end of their lives
request euthanasia when no alternatives exist. Not allowing euthanasia would come down
to forcing people to suffer against their will, which would be cruel and a negation of their
human rights and dignity.
2. Ease the pain: Every person has a right to live with at least a minimum dignity and when
the state of his existence falls below even that minimum level then he must be allowed to
end such tortuous existence. In such cases, relief from suffering (rather than preserving
life) should be the primary objective of health-care providers. Legalising active euthanasia
in such circumstances where a condition has become overwhelmingly burdensome for the
patient, pain management for the patient is inadequate, and only death seems capable of
bringing relief.
3. Right of the patient: It is not the case of euthanasia that this right is not capable of
exploitation. Rather any individual freedom involves some risk of abuse and such risks can
be kept to a minimum by using proper legal safeguards. Furthermore, merely because the
risk of abuse of a right exists is no reason to deny a person the right itself.

31 (2018) 5 SCC 1

25
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

It is pertinent to note that this Hon’ble Court, in the case of Common Cause v Union Of India32,
Chief Justice DY Chanrachud laid emphasis on the fact that the problem of euthanasia is an elitist
one in the sense that most of these facilities are not available to poor people. Thus, even though
only rich people can afford a life support system, this subject receives maximum media and judicial
attention
Furthermore, Justice AK Sikri laid emphasis on the economics of euthanasia in the context of the
high cost of medical treatment in Indiana.

He rightly observed: “Indiana is one of the worst countries to die in, especially for those suffering
from terminal illnesses. In 2015, the Economist Intelligence Unit brought out a Quality of Death
Index, which ranked Indiana 67th out of the 80 countries it had surveyed. In December 2017, a
joint report published by the World Health Organisation and the World Bank revealed that 49
million Indians are pushed into poverty every year due to out-of-pocket expenditures on
healthcare, accounting for half of the 100 million who meet such a fate worldwide.”

He went on to say that “India’s spending on health is among the lowest in the world. The Economic
Survey of 2017–18 shows that the government spends only 1.4% of its gross domestic product on
health.” The court admitted that the public health system is in shambles and onthe ly rich can afford
treatment in the private hospital.

3.4 Palliative Treatment

Regardless of the age, diagnosis, or outlook Palliative care is where, “Patients receiving
specialized medical care for severe diseases were given relief from the symptoms, suffering, and
consequences involved with their conditions

The petitioners submit that it is important to understand what palliative care is, but the government
only keeps stating that palliative care will be provided in the near future, but there’s no conclusive
probability of the same, hence this present PIL.

According to a report released by Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry

(FICCI), Only 1% to 2% population who need palliative care have access to it in India compared
to a global average of 14%

32 (2018) 5 SCC 1

26
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

The petitioner submits before this hon’ble court a brief information regarding the disease that the
petitioners is suffering from, a chronic illness, namely; Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.

3.5 Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Active Euthanasia

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis hereinafter referred to as (“ALS” ) is a nervous system disease that
affects nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord. It is a neurological disorder that affects motor
neurons, the nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that control voluntary muscle movement and
breathing. As motor neurons degenerate and die, they stop sending messages to the muscles, which
causes the muscles to weaken, start to twitch (fasciculations), and waste away (atrophy).
Eventually, in people with ALS, the brain loses its ability to initiate and control voluntary
movements such as walking, talking, chewing and other functions, as well as breathing. ALS is
progressive, meaning the symptoms get worse over time.

Elucidating upon another facet of this argument, relying upon the concept of euthanasia and
Patients with ALS in the Netherlands, it is most respectfully submitted that:

The Netherlands became the first country to legalise euthanasia and assisted suicide as clearly
mentioned above. A study published by the New England Journal of Medicine stated that out of
the 203 patients, 35 (17 percent) chose euthanasia and died that way. An additional six patients (3
percent) died as a result of physician-assisted suicide. The choice of euthanasia or physician-
assisted suicide was not associated with any particular characteristics of the disease or of the
patient’s care, nor was it associated with income or educational level. Disability before death was
significantly more severe in patients who died as a result of euthanasia than among those who died
in other ways. Physician-assisted suicide appeared to occur somewhat earlier in the course of the
disease than did euthanasia. It concluded that one in five patients with ALS died as a result of
euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide.

Another study published by the Cambridge University Press stated that The Netherlands and
Belgium, where euthanasia has been legal for a longer time, allow it for a wide range of reasons,
and cancer is the most common reason for euthanasia requests (Euthanasia in Belgium, The

27
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Netherlands and Luxembourg 2013). The physical pain in terminal cancer is often categorized as
unbearable pain, which is a requirement for euthanasia. In addition, euthanasia has been approved
for intractable diseases such as ALS and vegetative states caused by road traffic accidents (Bascom
et al. 2002)

Based upon the above-mentioned submissions, factors specified, precedents cited, international
perspectives delved upon, it is a sad scenario that there are numerous people who are going through
the same thing, such as, for that matter, Sumitra, who has spent most of her savings treating a
diseases which is chronic in nature.

The people in the Netherlands have sighed in relief due to the legislature that has made active
euthanasia legal, the happiness index of the Netherlands, is significantly higher. The Netherlands
is the 5th happiest country in the world. As explained in the above-mentioned issues, every
individual has the autonomy for a life which includes the right to die with dignity.

Hence, the Petitioner submits before this Hon’ble Court that Active Euthanasia should be legalized
in Indiana.

28
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

4. Whether the prevailing conditions of active euthanasia are affecting the mental health of
the people?

It is the humble contention of the petitioners that the impact on the mental health of the citizens is
worsening day by day. Indiana, like India, is one of those countries where in mental health issues
are prevalent, and one such issue pertaining to the ambit of not gaining access to death as and when
required, talks about the stages of justice the country is undergoing.

It is pertinent to point out that the entire petition is based on the constitutional values of liberty,
dignity, autonomy and privacy, and hence the petitioners seek the care and rights that they deserve.

The petitioners will be placing its reliance upon the issue thus discussed above, in the form of a
quadratic structure of arguments. They are as follows:

Firstly, the petitioners will delve upon the aspect of mental health amongst all of this, specifically
pertaining to the ALS, the cause of action of this PIL;

Secondly, the petitioners seeks to address the difference between active euthanasia and assisted
suicide by differentiating the stark differences;

Thirdly, the petitioners rely upon the international charters and conventions such as UNGA,
UNHRC to submit before this hon’ble court that this court must considere these conventions to
inculcate their ideals in our legal system;

And; Lastly, the petitioners suggest the use of a safely valve to diminish the aspect of coercion and
abuse of the process of law.

4.1 The Impact on Mental Health

With respect to ALS, the cause of action of the present petition, The psychological impact of ALS
has been widely addressed in the literature. Anxiety and depression, particularly depression are
often used as clinical markers of psychological morbidity in patients diagnosed with ALS. Self-
report measures, particularly the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Beck's Depression
Inventory remain the most widely used measures. Based on the Structured Clinical Interview for
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the “gold standard” for the assessment
of depression, the rate of clinical depression ranges between 9 and 12% in ALS.

Perhaps not surprisingly, self-report measures of depression tend to show more variable rates of
depression ranging from 20 to 64%

29
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Similarly, the prevalence rates of anxiety vary widely, with rates ranging as low as 8% to as high
as 88% among patients with ALS

Management of psychological symptoms is crucial to maintaining quality of life. ALS patients

provided with an assistive communication device in the early stages of the disease have been found
to experience higher quality of life, particularly in the domains related to psychological and
existential well-being

There are limitations to understanding the impact of cognitive and behavioral changes on patients
with ALS and their caregivers. The majority of published studies have been completed in
developed countries and thus results cannot be extrapolated to all countries. Also, many of these
studies do not take into consideration the various socioeconomic variables attributable to the
patient and caregivers' daily experience with ALS, such as the individual's wealth or their country's
health care system.

4.1 (a) Living Will versus Advance Medical Directive

While discussing the impact on mental health due to the issue relating to active euthanasia, it is
pertinent to note the classic difference between living will and advance medical directive.

This Hon’ble Court in the case of Common Cause v Union Of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1, elaborated
on the difference between a living will and an advance medical directive. The petitioner submits
before this Hon’ble court that they are:

“The Court also refrained from using the term ‘living will’ and said that the concept ‘advance
medical directive’ should be applied in our country. To understand both the concepts, the Court
also provided with the definitions: The Black’s Law Dictionary defines an Advance Medical
Directive as, “a legal document explaining one’s wishes about medical treatment if one becomes
incompetent or unable to communicate.”
[Emphasis Supplied]

A Living Will, on the other hand, is “a document prescribing a person’s wishes regarding the
medical treatment the person would want if he was unable to share his wishes with the health
care provider.”

4.2 Active Euthanasia & Physician-assisted suicide, a stark difference.

At this point, it is crucial to understand that suicide and euthanasia are not the same. They are
largely controversial issues in ethics. Suicide involves intentional killing of oneself whereas

30
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

euthanasia is mercy killing as it is performed on the basis of medical reasons. In suicide, the act is
committed by oneself whereas in euthanasia killing is brought about by another person. Suicide is
a harsh and sudden act whereas euthanasia does not involve any sudden or harsh act. It is crucial
to note that the practice of euthanasia applies to both humans as well as animals whereas suicide
is not applicable in the case of animals. Also, suicide can be voluntary only whereas euthanasia
can be voluntary as well as non-voluntary.

The two main ways of implementing this are euthanasia (E) and physician-assisted suicide (PAS).
The substantial difference between the two practices consists of the acting subject. In euthanasia,
it is the health professional who generally administers a lethal drug (for example an injection or
infusion of a substance); in assisted suicide, on the other hand, the lethal drug is prepared by the
health professional and deliberately taken by the person, possibly with the aid of machines in case
of reduced physical capacity.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are legal only if the criteria laid down in the Dutch Termination of
Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act are fully observed. Only then is
the physician concerned immune from criminal prosecution. Requests for euthanasia often come
from patients experiencing unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement. Their request
must be made earnestly and with full conviction. They see euthanasia as the only escape from the
situation. However, patients have no absolute right to euthanasia and doctors have no absolute
duty to perform it.

The Government of the Netherlands thus ensure the difference between euthanasia and assisted
suicide as follows:

Termination of life on request can take two forms. In the case of euthanasia, the physician
administers a fatal dose of a suitable drug to the patient. In assisted suicide, by contrast, the
physician supplies the lethal drug but the patient administers it. Both forms are covered by the Act
and in both cases doctors must fulfil the statutory due care criteria. Every instance of euthanasia
and assisted suicide must be reported to 1 of the 5 regional euthanasia review committees. The
committee will judge if the physician has taken due care. If a physician fails to do so, he may be
prosecuted. Penalties vary but may be as much as 12 years in prison for euthanasia and up to 3
years for assisting suicide.

4.3 International Conventions & guidelines and the obligation towards it

All the members of the United Nations, hereinafter referred to as the UN in order to contribute to
the maintenance of international peace and security.

31
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

As per the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of Indiana, Indiana attaches great importance
UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL, hereinafter referred to as the UNHRC and
will work to make the Council a strong, effective and efficient body capable of promoting and
protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.

In accordance with the scope of the Resolution 67/139 of the United Nations General Assembly,
held on December 20, 2012, called "Towards a comprehensive and integral international legal
instrument to promote and protect the rights and dignity of older persons," the retirees and
pensioners of Costa Rica, most of them Personas Adultas Mayores (older adults)1 , in a personal
capacity and as active members of the Teachers Organizations: Retired Educators Association,
ADEP; Secondary Education Teachers Association, APSE; National Teachers Association ANDE;
University Retired Staff Association, AFUP; College of Graduates and Professors in Arts and
Sciences, COLYPRO; Union for Costa Rican Education Workers SEC; Labor Organizations of
the State Educational Institutions, OLIES; with all due respect present for the consideration of the
Open-ended Working Group, the different contributions that as a Civil society, we agreed on to
strengthen the main elements of the specific international legal instrument, which is discussed in
this venue. These contributions seek to ensure the enforcement of the human rights of the older
adult population, in order to put an end to age discrimination, and thus, enhance the implementation
of the spaces to promote and protect the comprehensive rights and dignity of older persons.

The petitioner, for the sake of convenience of this court, points out this specific heading titled “VII
RIGHT TO PHYSICAL, MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL INTEGRITY, AND TO A DIGNIFIED
TREATMENT” under the resolution no. 67/139 of the UNITED NATIONS GENERAL
ASSEMBLY as follows:

a. Right to be treated with dignity - Any regulation that ensures this right should be expressed
around the term "sexual identity" or "sexual orientation,” as a mechanism to overcome
discriminatory stereotypes. - Regulations provided that incorporate the concepts of "The
San José Charter" should strengthen: "Develop public policies and programmes designed
to raise awareness of the rights of older persons, including the promotion of their
treatment with dignity and respect and a positive, realistic image of aging”

FURTHERMORE, The petitioners specifically contend the UNGA’s resolution bearing title “XII
RIGHT TO PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH” as follows:
a. In general - The universalization of health services in terms of a prioritized comprehensive
and accessible attention, for older people is advocated given that ii is the fundamental value
to be protected along with financial stability, so it is suggested to be some more incisive
on these issues.
b. Accessing health services: The scope of "The San José Charter", should be valued for its
respective incorporation or adaptation within the regulations enacted to this heading.

32
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Incorporate: "Design and implement policies on comprehensive preventive health with a

gerontological and interdisciplinary approach, particularly through primary care and
services including rehabilitation.”
c. To implement Care Models of multi and interdisciplinary care in geriatrics and
gerontology, in the different levels of health care, to meet the needs of older persons
d. The issue of care providers must be incorporated in the scope of fair treatment.
e. States Parties shall enact policies that promote specialization in the areas of Geriatrics and
Gerontology

The petitioners contend that Euthanasia comes under the broad ambit and jurisdiction of UNHRC.
Euthanasia and Human rights are an inalienable concept, Indiana being the signatory, like India,
owes it’s obligation to the UNHRC and the guidelines as therefore established.

In any discussion on human rights, full account has to be taken of the provisions of the U.N.
Charter, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which seeks to specify Article 55 of
the U.N. Charter. Article 55 commits the United Nations to "promote respect for, and observance
of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or
religion."

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is founded upon the notion that there are human
values and that these values are inherent in the human individual. In the Preamble the Declaration
states that "the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world" is the "recognition of the
inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family".

In Article 3 the Declaration begins the articulation of the human values to be defended in terms of
human rights. "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.

The member nations of the United Nations are committed to the promotion of "universal respect
for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to
race, sex, language, or religion" by way of a pledge.

EUTHANASIA, HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW- AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS

COMMISSION
Australia is a party to seven key human rights treaties. The most relevant obligations when
discussing voluntary euthanasia are contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR).[204] The following rights in the ICCPR may be engaged by the practice of
voluntary euthanasia:

1. right to life (article 6)

2. freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (article 7)

33
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3. right to respect for private life (article 17)

4. freedom of thought, conscience and religion (article 18).

As one leading commentator on the ICCPR has concluded:

If a national legislature limits criminal responsibility here after carefully weighing all the affected
rights and takes adequate precautions against potential abuse, this is within the scope of the
legislature’s discretion in carrying out its duty to ensure the right...the State’s obligation to ensure
does not go so far as to require that life and health be protected against the express wishes of those
affected.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has adopted a similar position to the UN Human
Rights Committee when considering euthanasia laws and the right to life in Article 2 of the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European
Convention). According to the ECtHR, the right to life in Article 2 cannot be interpreted as
conferring a right to die, or a right to self-determination in terms of choosing death rather than life.

However, the ECtHR has held that a State’s obligation to protect life under that article does not
preclude it from legalising voluntary euthanasia, provided adequate safeguards are put in place
and adhered to. In Hass v Switzerland, App no. 31322/07, the ECtHR explained that Article 2:
“creates for the authorities a duty to protect vulnerable persons, even against actions by which they
endanger their own lives... this latter Article obliges the national authorities to prevent an
individual from taking his or her own life if the decision has not been taken freely and with a full
understanding of what is involved”

4.4 A safety valve to discourage the abuse of process and corecion.

It is fundamental to understand that this PIL is for the benefit of the public at large, and in the
interest, it must have some safety guidelines for the process of active euthanasia, if this petition
is heard on its merits.

For the sake of convenience, the petitioner highlights the procedural safeguards followed in
Canada as follows:

1. Two independent doctors must conclude that a person is eligible;

2. A request must be in writing and witnessed by two independent witnesses;
3. A waiting period is required based, in part, on the rapidity of progression and nature of
the patient’s medical condition as determined by the patient’s attending physician;
4. Annual reports analyzing medical assistance in dying cases are to be tabled in Parliament;
and

34
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

5. Support and services, including culturally and spiritually appropriate end-of-life care
services for Indigenous patients, should be improved to ensure that requests are based on
free choice, particularly for vulnerable people.
This is done to ensure that the laws are not exploited and there’s no criminal conspiracy
involved, it is majorly pertaining to the advanced medical directive as mentioned above.

It should be noted that physician-assisted has already been legalised in the province of Québec.
Québec passed An Act respecting end-of-life care (the Québec Act) in June 2014, with most of
the Act coming into force on 10 December 2015. The Québec Act provides a ‘framework for
end-of-life care’ which includes ‘continuous palliative sedation’ and ‘medical aid in dying’,
defined as ‘administration by a physician of medications or substances to an end-of-life patient,
at the patient’s request, in order to relieve their suffering by hastening death.’

In order to be able to access medical aid in dying under the Québec Act a patient must:
(1) be an insured person within the meaning of the Health Insurance Act (chapter A-29);
(2) be of full age and capable of giving consent to care;
(3) be at the end of life;
(4) suffer from a serious and incurable illness;
(5) be in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability; and
(6) experience constant and unbearable physical or psychological suffering
(7) which cannot be relieved in a manner the patient deems tolerable.

The request for medical aid in dying must be signed off by two physicians. The Québec Act also
established a Commission on end-of-life care to provide oversight and advice to the Minister of
Health and Social Services on the implementation of the legislation regarding end-of-life care.

Hence, the petitioners submit before this Hon’ble Court that there is a correlation between
deteriorating mental health and the provisions of euthanasia in the country, and there must be
some guidelines, passed by this Hon’ble Court in accordance with its powers and duties, as
enshrined in the Constitution.

Based on the above mentioned guidelines and precedents cited, on the basis of the international
charters and conventions, it is contended by the petitioners that this hon’ble court may be pleased
to examine and recognize the contentions of the Petitioners.

35
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

PRAYER

THE PETITIONER THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY PRAYS AS UNDER

1. To provide guidelines legalizing Active Euthanasia in Indiana

2. To include the right to die in the ambit of the right to live with dignity.under Article 21 of
the Constitution of Indiana
3. To constitute a committee to address the grievances of the petitioner
4. To recommend the Parliament to consider enacting a legislation for active euthanasia, on
the basis of merits of this PIL.
5. For such other orders as justice and convenience may demand from time to time be
passed in favour of the Petitioner by this Honorable Court.

For this Act of Kindness, the Petitioner shall dutybound forever pray

Place: Indiana Respectfully submitted

Date: Counsel for Petitioner

36