Dying With Dignity: India's Evolving End-Of-Life Jurisprudence The Supreme Court's recent proceedings in Harish Rana v Union of India have brought to the forefront a constitutional question at the intersection of medicine and law. Harish Rana suffered a catastrophic brain injury in 2013, leaving him in a persistent vegetative state. For over a decade, his survival depended on medical interventions, including clinically assisted nutrition and hydration through a feeding tube. His parents approached the Supreme Court seeking legal clarity on whether such interventions should be considered medical treatment rather than basic care. The Court clarified that artificial nutrition and hydration can be regarded as medical treatment, which may be evaluated under the principle of the patient's best interests. The judgment also refined procedural safeguards for end-of-life decisions, addressing the constitution of medical boards, procedures for home care, and the need to reduce doctors' hesitation in making ethically justified decisions. This ruling does not merely resolve an individual case but reflects the Court's ongoing effort to develop a constitutional framework for dignity at the end of life. Indian constitutional law has approached the issue of end-of-life decisions cautiously over several decades. The debate first emerged in P. Rathinam v Union of India (1994), where the Supreme Court briefly held that criminalizing attempted suicide violated constitutional liberty. This reasoning was reconsidered in Gian Kaur v State of Punjab (1996), where a Constitution Bench rejected the idea of a fundamental right to die.#supreme_court #harish_rana #union_of_india #constitutional_law #end_of_life
Allahabad High Court Directs Centre To Produce Record Of MHA Notice To Rahul Gandhi The Allahabad High Court on Monday directed the Union of India to submit the complete records of a 2019 notice issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. The court’s order came while hearing a petition filed by Karnataka BJP member S. Vignesh Shishir, who challenged a Lucknow Court’s decision to refuse directing the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Gandhi over allegations related to his British citizenship. The case stems from a complaint filed by BJP MP Subramanian Swamy in 2015, which alleged that Gandhi holds British nationality. In response, the MHA issued a notice to Gandhi on April 29, 2019, asking him to provide the “factual position” regarding his citizenship. The court’s bench, comprising Justice Rajeev Singh, sought the records to assess the validity of the claims. Shishir’s petition argued that Gandhi is a UK citizen and had incorporated a company named M/s Backops Ltd. in August 2003. The petitioner claimed that Gandhi voluntarily declared his nationality as British, holding a Director Identification ID and providing addresses in London and Hampshire. Additionally, it was stated that Gandhi submitted the company’s annual returns in October 2005 and October 2006, listing his nationality as British. The company was later dissolved in February 2009 via a dissolution application. The petition further highlighted that Gandhi contested the 2004 Lok Sabha elections while disclosing ownership of M/s Backops Ltd. and his foreign bank account with Barclays Bank, London Branch.#rahul_gandhi #allahabad_high_court #union_of_india #ministry_of_home_affairs #s_vignesh_shishir
Petition to Remove 'Kerala' from 'Kerala Story 2' Film Title, High Court A public interest litigation (PIL) was filed in the Kerala High Court, seeking a directive to change the title of the recently released film "The Kerala Story 2: Go Beyond" to exclude the word "Kerala" or "Keralam." The petition, filed by two individuals—a retired social science teacher and a Muslim woman practicing law in the Kerala High Court—argues that the inclusion of the term in the film's title could incite religious tensions and harm the Muslim community in the state. The petition highlights that the film, which features heroes from three states, was released after a temporary ban on its release was lifted. A single judge initially imposed a ban, citing concerns that the film's teaser and trailer might threaten communal harmony. However, the ban was overturned following an appeal. The petition emphasizes that the film's creators claim the story is based on real events, but the petitioners argue this could lead to forced conversions and stigmatize the Muslim community in Kerala. The PIL also references previous cases where similar concerns were raised. In a prior petition challenging the first film in the series, the Supreme Court had ruled that the portrayal of forced conversions and ISIS-related incidents was exaggerated. The petitioners now argue that the film's title, which prominently features "Kerala," could be used to target the state's Muslim population, even though the film itself does not focus on Kerala-specific events. The petition draws parallels to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case Atul Mishra v. Union of India, which addressed the Netflix film "Ghoomar." The court had stated that using a title to tarnish a specific community is unacceptable.#kerala_story_2 #supreme_court #union_of_india #kerala_high_court #chandramohan_k_c
