TARKESHWAR CHANDRABANSHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition was filed on 10 January, 2001. It was placed before the Court the next day. On the date when it was filed and on the next day an issue was raised by counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ebrahim Kabir, Advocate that the petitioners are seeking a declaration from the Court and the Court is called upon to take a decision on the issue of euthanasia. Taking the submissions made at the Bar of the Court on their face value, the Court was under the impression that indeed this petition may be raising genuine issues about euthanasia and we had no reason to suspect that the picture would change after notices were issued on the writ petition.

(2.) EUTHANASIA in broad concept is a technical term which in simpler terms may be understood as mercy killing. The issue is being debated all over the world. It is debatable because it is not, compatible with the code of conduct of the medical profession, which obliges the doctor to preserve life, the issue is debatable if it is brought to the Court as it is not the place of the court to end a life, except by due process of the law as indictment or conviction.

(3.) THERE were also side issues which were presented. Doctors "extracting" money was mentioned. It was contended that while Kanchan Devi was in coma and was unable to sign any cheque a sum of Rs. 9000/ - was withdrawn from the bank in her name. The questions was who had tailored the situation to take the thumb impression of Kanchan Devi when she lay in coma? The record apparently shows that the husband of Kanchan Devi, the banker and others who might be present at the Nursing Home, seem to be involved in withdrawing money from a bank account of a person who had no capacity to even think or be conscious to the world. The ethics of this is debatable.