#supreme_court_of_india

Supreme Court Dismisses Ravi Nair's Defamation Plea in Adani Case The Supreme Court of India on Monday rejected a petition filed by journalist Ravi Nair, who had sought to challenge a defamation case registered against him by the Gujarat crime branch. The case stems from an article co-authored by Nair and Pransh Verma for The Washington Post, which questioned the state-run Life Insurance Corporation’s (LIC) reported investments in the Adani group despite U.S. indictments against billionaire Gautam Adani and his son Sagar Adani. The article, titled “India’s $3.9 billion plan to help Modi’s Moghul ally after US charge,” alleged that the LIC had invested in Adani group stocks despite allegations of fraud and bribery against the business tycoon and his executives. The court bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, questioned senior advocate Anand Grover, who represented Nair, about the legal basis for the petition. The bench emphasized that Nair’s plea under Article 32 of the Constitution, which allows individuals to approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, was not the appropriate route. Instead, the court directed Nair to file his petition under Article 226, which pertains to the High Court’s jurisdiction. The justices stated, “Why Article 32 petition? Go to the high court,” highlighting the procedural misstep in the case. The Gujarat crime branch had summoned Nair on February 12, requiring him to appear before a court on February 19. However, the Supreme Court bench ruled that the issues raised in the case could be addressed in the High Court. Nair’s legal team had sought protection from coercive actions until the case was transferred to the High Court, but the bench denied this request, noting that Nair could electronically file his petition.#supreme_court_of_india #ravi_nair #pransh_verma #gautam_adani #sagar_adani

SC Raps HC Judge for Overwhelming Bail Grants in Dowry Deaths A judge of the Allahabad High Court has come under scrutiny after data revealed a pattern of granting bail in dowry death cases, following criticism from the Supreme Court of India. An analysis of 510 bail orders issued between October and December 2025 by Justice Pankaj Bhatia showed that bail was granted in 508 cases, accounting for 99.61% of the total. The cases primarily involved charges under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to dowry death, along with provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Supreme Court had previously challenged one of Justice Bhatia’s bail orders in February, questioning the reasoning behind granting relief in a serious dowry death case. The case in question involved a woman who died within months of marriage, with postmortem findings indicating strangulation. The apex court emphasized the need to evaluate factors such as the nature of the offense, evidence, and the relationship between the accused and the deceased. A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Vishwanathan expressed confusion over the High Court’s rationale, stating, “We fail to understand on plain reading of the impugned order as to what the High Court is trying to convey… what weighed with the High Court in exercising its discretion in favour of the accused for the purpose of grant of bail in a very serious crime like dowry death.” Following the Supreme Court’s remarks, Justice Bhatia requested that he not be assigned bail matters, citing the demoralizing impact of the criticism.#allahabad_high_court #supreme_court_of_india #justice_pankaj_bhatia #justice_j_b_pardiwala #justice_k_v_vishwanathan

The Jurisprudence Of Dignity: Evolution Of Passive Euthanasia In India The Supreme Court of India’s landmark judgment in Harish Rana v. Union of India & Ors. (2026) marked a pivotal shift in the legal and ethical framework surrounding end-of-life care. By authorizing the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for a 32-year-old man in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) for over 12 years, the Court transformed passive euthanasia from a theoretical constitutional right into a practical legal reality. This decision redefined the boundaries of patient autonomy and the state’s role in medical decision-making. The term “euthanasia” originates from the Greek words “eu” (good) and “thanatos” (death), signifying a painless and peaceful death. It encompasses both active and passive methods, with the latter involving the withdrawal of life-sustaining interventions rather than direct intervention. Historically, the concept has evolved through medical and legal discourse, with early references dating back to the 17th century. The House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics in England later formalized the definition, describing euthanasia as a deliberate act to end a life to relieve intractable suffering. While active euthanasia remains illegal in most jurisdictions, passive euthanasia—such as discontinuing ventilators or feeding tubes—is permitted in many countries. This distinction reflects a broader legal consensus that terminally ill patients possess a common law right to refuse treatment, allowing nature to take its course. Courts in jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, and Australia have consistently upheld principles that prioritize patient autonomy, even as they impose strict procedural safeguards.#aruna_shanbaug #harish_rana #supreme_court_of_india #common_cause #right_to_die_with_dignity

Justice for all: On the NCERT Textbook Issue, the Judiciary The Supreme Court of India has expressed concern over references to judicial corruption in a National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) textbook, directing that the curriculum development team lacked “reasonable, informed knowledge about the Indian judiciary.” The Court’s ruling has raised alarms about potential bias in textbook content, as it has instructed that individuals involved in the NCERT team should not be associated with preparing school curricula or finalizing textbooks for future generations. This directive has cast doubt over the entire process of textbook creation, with critics arguing that the Court’s focus on judicial chapters could set a precedent for other subjects, particularly history, where factual misrepresentation has occasionally been linked to ideological bias. The Court’s decision to involve a senior judge in approving chapters on the judiciary has sparked debate about the need for similar scrutiny in other areas of the curriculum. For instance, history textbooks have faced scrutiny for their portrayal of historical figures and events. A class eight social science textbook, for example, describes Muslim rulers as uniformly cruel and repressive while portraying Hindu kingdoms as benevolent and resistant to Muslim rule. Such narratives have drawn criticism for lacking objectivity and potentially fostering prejudice, despite disclaimers stating that modern students are not responsible for the “sins” of the past. The BJP and its affiliated groups have long criticized Indian textbooks for being “Macaulay-an,” arguing that they promoted a Westernized perspective that devalued India’s traditions and Hindu heritage.#judiciary #bjp #supreme_court_of_india #ncert #textbook_content

The Supreme Court of India has established comprehensive legal and medical guidelines for the termination of life support (passive euthanasia) in cases involving patients in a permanent vegetative state (PVS), as exemplified in the case of Harish Rana. Here's a structured summary of the key points and implications: --- Legal Framework for Passive Euthanasia The Supreme Court has clarified that passive euthanasia (withdrawing life-sustaining treatment) is permissible only under strict conditions, including: Medical Certification: A primary and secondary medical board must confirm the patient is in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) and that recovery is impossible. Patient's Will: The patient must have expressed a clear, unambiguous wish to end life support (e.g., through an advance directive or living will). Family Consultation: The family (legal guardians) must be consulted, and their consent is required, provided they are competent and not influenced by emotional bias. Ethical and Legal Safeguards: The process must ensure human dignity, palliative care, and no coercion. --- Criteria for Terminating Life Support The Court outlined four key criteria to evaluate whether life support should be withdrawn: No Recovery Possibility: The patient must have no chance of recovery (e.g., confirmed PVS). Medical Purpose of Life Support: The life-sustaining treatment must no longer serve a medical purpose (e.g., it only prolongs suffering without improving quality of life). No Benefit to the Patient: The treatment must not provide any tangible benefit to the patient (e.g., no improvement in health or quality of life). Family and Legal Capacity: The family must have mental, physical, and financial capacity to make the decision, and their consent must be obtained.#aiims #harish_rana #supreme_court_of_india #medical_boards #permanent_vegetative_state

The Supreme Court of India's ruling on passive euthanasia (withdrawing life support from terminally ill patients in a vegetative state) is a landmark decision that balances legal, ethical, and medical considerations. Here's a structured breakdown of the key aspects: --- Legal Framework and Ruling Passive Euthanasia Definition: Withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment (e.g., ventilators, feeding tubes) for patients in a vegetative state with no hope of recovery. Case Background: The ruling stemmed from the Aruna Shanbaug case (2011), where a nurse, left in a vegetative state after an assault in 1973, was declared legally dead in 2011. Her family sought permission to discontinue life support, which the court approved. Court's Stance: The Supreme Court emphasized strict procedural safeguards to prevent misuse. It mandated: Ethics Committee Approval: Hospitals must form a committee to assess the patient's condition and recommend withdrawal of life support. Court Oversight: Final approval from the court is required to ensure the decision aligns with legal and ethical standards. Patient Autonomy: The decision must respect the patient's advance directives (if any) or the wishes of their family, provided they are deemed competent. --- Ethical and Medical Implications Vegetative State Criteria: Patients must be in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) with no neurological function or no hope of recovery, as determined by medical experts. Family Role: Families are central to the decision-making process, but their choices must be guided by medical evidence and legal protocols to avoid coercion. Prevention of Abuse: The ruling aims to prevent unethical practices like "doctor-assisted dying" or forced termination of treatment without proper oversight.#aruna_shanbaug #supreme_court_of_india #national_commission_for_protection_of_child_rights #medical_boards #ethics_committee

Supreme Court Approves First Passive Euthanasia Case, Permits Life Support Withdrawal for Man in Vegetative State The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday issued its first-ever ruling permitting passive euthanasia, aligning with its 2018 Common Cause judgment, which was later modified in 2023. The court authorized the withdrawal of life support for a 32-year-old man, Harish Rana, who has been in an irreversible permanent vegetative state for 13 years following a fall from a building. The decision was made on a petition filed by his father, seeking to discontinue all life-sustaining treatments. The bench, comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, acknowledged the medical reports confirming Harish’s condition. The court noted that his brain injury, sustained during the accident, left him in a Persistent Vegetative State (PSV) with complete quadraplegia. Despite ongoing medical interventions, including Clinically Administered Nutrition (CAN) delivered via surgically implanted PEG tubes, his condition has not improved over the past decade. The court emphasized that continued treatment merely extended his biological existence without therapeutic benefit. The ruling stated that the withdrawal of CAN, a medical treatment, could be decided by the Primary and Secondary Medical Boards. The court highlighted that these boards, along with the patient’s parents, had concluded that continuing life support was not in Harish’s best interest. While the court acknowledged that the medical boards’ decision should be sufficient, it intervened in this case as a precedent. The court directed that life support must be withdrawn in a dignified manner, ensuring the patient’s comfort and respect for his autonomy.#harish_rana #supreme_court_of_india #justice_jb_pardiwala #justice_kv_viswanathan #common_cause

The Harish Rana Verdict: India’s Fight Over The Right To Die For 13 years, one family fought not to save their son — but to let him go. The Supreme Court of India has now allowed passive euthanasia for Harish Rana, a man who has been in a persistent vegetative state since 2010. The ruling marks a pivotal moment in India’s legal and ethical discourse on end-of-life decisions, granting his family the right to withdraw life-sustaining treatment under strict judicial oversight. The case has reignited debates about the balance between medical intervention, patient autonomy, and the moral responsibilities of families and healthcare providers. Harish Rana’s condition, which left him unable to communicate or respond to his environment, became a focal point for his family’s plea to end his suffering. His parents and siblings argued that prolonging his life in a vegetative state would be an act of cruelty, violating his dignity and the natural course of his life. The court’s decision to permit passive euthanasia — defined as the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment — reflects a recognition of the family’s right to make such a choice, provided it aligns with legal and ethical safeguards. The ruling has sparked polarized reactions across India. Supporters view it as a compassionate acknowledgment of the family’s plight and a step toward respecting individual rights. Critics, however, warn of the risks of legalizing euthanasia, citing fears of misuse, potential for abuse by families, and the erosion of medical ethics. Legal experts have emphasized the need for stringent protocols, including mandatory judicial approval and the involvement of medical professionals, to prevent exploitation of the system.#family #passive_euthanasia #harish_rana #supreme_court_of_india #medical_ethics