We can't keep the boy like this: SC to speak to parents on euthanasia plea

While hearing an application filed by the father of a 32-year-old man who has remained in a vegetative state for nearly 12 years after a fall from a building, the Supreme Court on Thursday said it would like to interact with the man’s parents on January 13, and examine the medical report submitted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).

 

The bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan observed that the case has reached a stage where a final decision would be required. It directed the councils to study the AIIMS report in detail to assist the Court before final orders are passed. 

 

 

"We have reached a stage wherein we will have to take a final call. So your thorough assistance will be required. We will ask the Registry to provide you with one copy of the report. Study the report. It's a very sad report, and it will be a big challenge for us also, but we can't keep the boy like this for all time to come," the bench said.

 

The report was sought in connection with the father’s plea seeking permission for passive euthanasia, through the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. The application is being considered under the framework laid down by the Constitution Bench in Common Cause (2018), as modified by a subsequent order in January 2023, which requires opinions from multiple medical boards before passive euthanasia can be allowed.

 

In accordance with these guidelines, a Primary Medical Board was earlier constituted. The board reported that the chances of recovery were negligible, noting that the patient is bedridden, dependent on a tracheostomy tube for breathing and a gastrostomy tube for feeding, and has developed extensive bed sores. 

 

On the basis of this assessment, the Court directed that the case be examined by a Secondary Medical Board constituted by AIIMS.

 

On Wednesday, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati informed the Court that the AIIMS report had been submitted. After briefly perusing it, Justice Pardiwala remarked that the findings suggested the patient could not continue in his present condition indefinitely.

 

As copies of the report had not yet been shared with the lawyers, the Court directed the Registry to provide them to Advocate Rashmi Nandakumar, appearing for the petitioner, and to the ASG. 

 

The ASG submitted that the family would need to be consulted before any order is passed. Agreeing, the Court said it would prefer to speak to the parents in person rather than through a virtual interaction. It accordingly directed them to remain present before the bench on January 13 at 3:00 p.m. in the committee room. The Court also asked both councils to place their submissions in writing and directed that the Primary Medical Board’s report be furnished to them.

 

The father had earlier approached the Supreme Court in 2024 seeking passive euthanasia for his son. At that stage, the court declined to grant the relief, though the State of Uttar Pradesh agreed to continue bearing the cost of medical treatment. The present application was filed after the father informed the Court that his son’s condition had deteriorated and that he was no longer responding to treatment.