Court Steps In
In a significant move, the Orissa High Court has admitted a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the state’s compliance with Supreme Court guidelines on euthanasia. Nearly two years after the apex court issued its landmark directives, the Odisha government has yet to take action.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M.S. Raman has sought responses from the concerned authorities. The matter will next be heard on September 18.
Right to Live, Right to Die
The PIL, filed by senior lawyer Dr. Kanhaiya Lal Sharma, raises the fundamental human rights question: just as every individual has the right to live with dignity, they also have the right to die with dignity.
For patients suffering from irreversible terminal illnesses, where death is inevitable, the petition argues for the legal recognition of their autonomous choice to discontinue life-sustaining treatments. “When a person wishes to endure the least possible suffering, their choice deserves statutory recognition,” the petition asserts, blending ethical, medical, and constitutional reasoning.
Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling
The case refers to the landmark Common Cause vs. Union of India verdict, in which the Supreme Court on January 24, 2023, legally recognized passive euthanasia. The apex court also introduced the concept of ‘living wills’ and advance medical directives—documents that allow individuals to spell out their medical preferences in case of imminent death or a vegetative state.
The ruling was circulated to all High Court Registrars across the country, making it binding on states. Several states have since taken action, but Odisha has lagged behind.
Odisha’s Delay and Its Impact
While Karnataka has already rolled out the ‘Right to Die with Dignity’ scheme, Odisha has yet to adopt the standards, despite multiple reminders sent to the Health and Family Welfare Department.
The absence of clear guidelines leaves terminally ill patients vulnerable to exploitation by hospitals and nursing homes, often resulting in overcharging and financial devastation for families. Living wills, the petitioner argues, could curb such malpractice by allowing patients to voluntarily stop invasive life-support systems like ventilators or feeding tubes—ensuring a more peaceful and dignified end.
Petitioner’s Demands
The PIL calls on the state government to:
-
Frame rules for living wills and advance directives without delay.
-
Establish judicial oversight in executing such documents to prevent misuse.
The petition has been filed against the Health and Family Welfare Department Secretary and the Registrar General of the High Court. Parrta Mukherjee represents the petitioner, while Debasish Tripathy, Additional Government Advocate, will argue for the state.
A Debate of National Importance
The case comes at a time when debates on end-of-life care, patient autonomy, and hospice practices are gaining traction nationwide. For Odisha, the High Court’s intervention could affect the lives of nearly 45 million people, bridging the gap between judicial intent and ground reality.
While medical advancements extend life, they do not always guarantee quality of life. By recognizing personal agency even in life’s final moments, the High Court’s decision could pave the way for humane laws that honor dignity until the very end.