One-Day Live Medico-Legal Training (18 Oct)→
All Judgements
18Informed Consent

Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs Union Of India

Supreme Court of India2018AIR 2018 SC 1665

Court

SC

Year

2018

Category

Informed Consent

Compensation

None

Background

A writ petition was filed by Common Cause seeking to declare the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right and to secure legal recognition for advance medical directives (living wills) for terminally ill patients.

The Legal Question

Whether the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to die with dignity, and whether advance medical directives for passive euthanasia are legally permissible and enforceable.

The Court's Decision

The Court held that the right to life with dignity includes the right to a dignified death. It legally recognized passive euthanasia and laid down comprehensive guidelines for the execution of advance directives and the withdrawal of life support.

Principle Established

The right to life with dignity encompasses the right to die with dignity. Passive euthanasia and advance directives are legally valid and enforceable under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Relevant Legal Provisions

Constitution of India, Article 21Indian Penal Code, 1860
Practical Impact

What This Means for Your Practice

    Doctors are legally protected when withdrawing life support based on a valid advance directive or surrogate consent for terminally ill patients without hope of recovery.

    Hospitals must constitute Medical Boards to certify the necessity of passive euthanasia and validate the withdrawal of treatment in conjunction with the jurisdictional Magistrate.

    Physicians must act in the best interest of the patient, ensuring that any advance directive was made voluntarily and with informed consent.

Disclaimer: The case summary, legal analysis, and practical notes on this page are for educational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. The original PDF is sourced from public Indian court records. MedicoLegalAid does not claim ownership of the original judgement.

Chat with Us