Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The 5-judge Constitution bench of Dipak Misra, CJ and Dr. AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, Dr. DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, JJ reserved the verdict on whether or not a terminally ill patient has a right to die with dignity.

The Court was hearing the reference of the 3-judge bench of P. Sathasivam, CJ, Ranjan Gogoi and Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ that has, in  Common Cause v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 338, referred the matter relating to right to die or euthanasia to a Constitution Bench and noted:

“although the Constitution Bench in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 648 upheld that the ‘right to live with dignity’ under Article 21 will be inclusive of ‘right to die with dignity’, the decision does not arrive at a conclusion for validity of euthanasia be it active or passive. So, the only judgment that holds the field in regard to euthanasia in India is Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 454, which upholds the validity of passive euthanasia and lays down an elaborate procedure for executing the same on the wrong premise that the Constitution Bench in Gian Kaur had upheld the same.”

The bench had said that it was extremely important to have a clear enunciation of law on euthanasia and hence, invited the Constitution bench to lay down exhaustive guidelines in this regard.

Earlier, in Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 454, the bench of Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ, had refused to allow Aruna Shaunbaug, who had been the centre of the euthanasia debate as she spent 42 years of her life in a Permanent Vegetative State, to be euthanised but allowed terminally ill patients to choose to be passively euthanised. It was held that passive euthanasia can also only be allowed by the High Court and an application should be moved before it in this regard. Allowing passive euthanasia, the bench had said:

“if we leave it solely to the patient’s relatives or to the doctors or next friend to decide whether to withdraw the life support of an incompetent person there is always a risk in our country that this may be misused by some unscrupulous persons who wish to inherit or otherwise grab the property of the patient. Considering the low ethical levels prevailing in our society today and the rampant commercialisation and corruption, we cannot rule out the possibility that unscrupulous persons with the help of some unscrupulous doctors may fabricate material to show that it is a terminal case with no chance of recovery.”

The 5-judge bench heard the matter for 2 days continuously and will pronounce the verdict soon.

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: In the plea filed by a man whose wife and daughter were allegedly gangraped in July last year on a highway near Bulandshahar, seeking transfer of the case to Delhi and lodging of an FIR against former Uttar Pradesh Minister Azam Khan for his controversial statement that the gangrape case was a “political conspiracy”, the bench of Dipak Misra, CJ and AM Khanwilkar and Dr. DY Chandrachud, JJ referred the matter to a five-judge constitution bench to decide the question as to whether a public functionary or a minister can claim freedom of speech while airing views in a sensitive matter which is under investigation.

The Court also expressed concern over the misuse of social media platforms and said that people disseminated wrong information even about the court proceedings. Senior Advocate Fali S. Nariman, who is assisting the bench as an amicus curiae, submitted before the Court that a lot of misinformation and abuses are there on social media platforms and he has stopped looking at them. To this, Senior Advocate Harish Salve added that he had deleted his Twitter account.

The Bulandshahar rape case happened on the night of July 29 last year when a group of highway robbers stopped the car of a Noida-based family and sexually assaulted a woman and her daughter after dragging them out of the vehicle at gun-point. Azam Khan had, in a public address, termed the entire incident as a “political conspiracy only and nothing else”. Harish Salve submitted before the Court that ministers cannot have personal views on official business matters as whatever the person says, must reflect government policy.

Last year, on 29.08.2016, the Bench of Dipak Misra and C. Nagappan, JJ had asked Fali S. Nariman to assist the Court in determining, inter alia, whether the fundamental right of speech and expression would be governed under reasonable restriction of decency or morality or whether other preferred fundamental rights would also have an impact on it.

Source: PTI

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the light of the data privacy concerns raised before the Court in the matter relating to Whatsapp data sharing with it’s parent company Facebook, the 5-judge bench of Dipak Misra, CJ and Dr. AK Sikri, Amitava Roy, AM Khanwilkar and MM Shantanagoudar, JJ asked Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Arvind Datar, appearing for Whatsapp and Facebook, to file affidavits with regard to the assertions made by the petitioners within 4 weeks.

Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta brought to the Court’s notice that a committee headed by Former Supreme Court judge, Justice B N Srikrishna, was being formed to deliberate on a data protection framework for India keeping in mind the need to ensure growth of the digital economy while keeping personal data of citizens secure and protected. He further submitted there was a possibility that the law shall be passed regulating the data protection once the committee submits it’s report. Arvind Datar also submitted that the 9-judge bench, in Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 996, had expressed the view that there should be a law with regard to data protection.

Refusing to pass any interim order restraining the respondent from sharing the data with the third party, the Court said that it will consider passing interim order after the affidavits are filed and if the assertions made in the affidavit would not require any kind of intervention by this Court, this Court may not pass any interim order. The matter will next be taken up on 20.11.2017. [Karmanya Singh Sareen v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1051, order dated 06.09.2017]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The Court allowed the petition filed by Centre & Medical Council of India (MCI) seeking review of its judgement scrapping the single common entrance test for medical courses. NEET is conducted for admission in MBBS, BDS and postgraduate courses in all medical colleges. The 3-judge bench headed by the then CJI Altamas Kabir along with A.R. Dave and Vikramajit Sen, JJ had scrapped the common entrance test in Christian Medical College, Vellore v. Union of India, (2013) 14 SCC 539. On 21st January, 2016, it was ordered that the review petition be heard by a 5-judge bench which led to the constitution of a bench comprising of A.R. Dave, Dr. A.K. Sikri, R.K. Agrawal, Adarsh K. Goel and R. Banumathi.
The Court was of the opinion that the aforesaid judgment needed reconsideration as the majority view had not taken into consideration some binding precedents and more particularly, there was no discussion among the members of the Bench before pronouncement of the judgment. [Medical Council of India v. Christian Medical College Vellore, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 305, decided on 11.04.2016]