Question

Based on the given excerpt, which of the following judgments relates to euthanasia?

• A. Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1
• B. Santosh Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 253.
• C. Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India, (2008) 3 SCC 1
• D. ) Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar, (1996) 5 SCC 125.
• A. The purpose and object is to express the choice of a person regarding medical treatment in an event when he loses capacity to take a decision
• B. Right of execution by an individual does not depend on any recognition or legislation by a state.
• C. It is also known as a living will
• D. Right of execution by an individual depends on recognition or legislation by a state
• A. Right to life does not include right to die
• B. Right to life is a natural right embodied in Article 21 but suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life, and therefore, incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of right to life.
• C. Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was held constitutional.
• D. Right to life includes right to die.
• A. A person of competent mental faculty is entitled to execute an Advance Medical Directive in accordance with the safeguards.
• B. An adult human being having mental capacity to take an informed decision has right to refuse medical treatment including withdrawal from life saving devices.
• C. An adult human being having mental capacity to take an informed decision has right to refuse medical treatment including withdrawal from life saving devices.
• D. In case of incompetent patients, ‘the best interest principle’ will be applied and such decision will be taken by specified competent medical experts.
• A. Aruna Ramchnadra Shanbaug v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 454
• B. D.S. Grewal v. Vimmi Joshi, (2009) 2 SCC 210
• C. Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra, 1986 SCC OnLine Bom 278
• D. P. Rathinam v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 394.
• A. It is legally permissible in India
• B. It is legally not permissible in India.
• C. Passive euthanasia entails withholding of medical treatment for continuance of life
• D. Passive euthanasia is to avoid a prolonged agony.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

The correct option is (A) : Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1

Answer 2

The excerpt discusses the right to self-determination and bodily integrity, the right to execute an Advance Medical Directive, and the corresponding duties of the State and treating physicians under Article 21. The question asks which judgment this excerpt is drawn from.

1. Option A: Common Cause v. Union of India is the Constitution Bench judgment that recognised the right of a competent individual to execute an Advance Medical Directive (a "living will"), grounded the right in bodily autonomy and self-determination under Article 21, and laid down that this right exists independently of any legislative recognition by the State. This matches the excerpt's language and reasoning closely.
2. Option B: Santosh Singh v. Union of India does not deal with Advance Medical Directives or the right to self-determination in the medical context.
3. Option C: Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India concerns constitutional scrutiny of protective discrimination in employment, not medical directives or end-of-life autonomy.
4. Option D: Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar concerns tribal women's succession rights, an entirely different subject matter unrelated to Advance Medical Directives.

Only Common Cause v. Union of India addresses the Advance Medical Directive and the constitutional basis for it described in the excerpt.

Hence, the correct answer is (A) Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1.

Answer 3

The correct option is (D) : Right of execution by an individual depends on recognition or legislation by a state

Answer 4

The excerpt states clearly that the right to execute an Advance Medical Directive does not depend on any recognition or legislation by a State, and is instead grounded directly in Article 21. The question asks which statement is NOT correct about this right.

1. Option A: This accurately reflects the excerpt's stated purpose - the directive exists to record a person's choice about medical treatment for a time when they may become incapable of deciding for themselves. This is a correct statement.
2. Option B: This accurately reflects the excerpt, which expressly says the right does not depend on recognition or legislation by a State. This is correct and consistent with the passage.
3. Option C: An Advance Medical Directive is indeed also referred to as a living will in this context, so this statement is accurate.
4. Option D: This states the opposite of what the excerpt says - it claims the right depends on state recognition or legislation, when the excerpt explicitly says such recognition or legislation is not required. This directly contradicts the passage.

Since options A, B and C are all consistent with the excerpt while option D directly reverses its stated position, D is the one that is not correct.

Hence, the correct answer is (D) Right of execution by an individual depends on recognition or legislation by a state.

Answer 5

The correct option is (D) : Right to life includes right to die.

Answer 6

Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab is the judgment in which the Supreme Court overruled the earlier view that Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code was unconstitutional, and clarified the relationship between the right to life and the act of suicide.

1. Option A: The Court did hold that the right to life under Article 21 does not, as its natural extension, include a right to die - this is an accurate statement of the holding.
2. Option B: The Court reasoned that the right to life is a natural right, while suicide is an unnatural termination of life, making the two concepts incompatible - this too is an accurate statement of the reasoning in the judgment.
3. Option C: The Court upheld Section 309 IPC as constitutional in this very judgment, so this statement correctly reflects the holding.
4. Option D: This claims the right to life includes a right to die - this is precisely the proposition the Court rejected in Gian Kaur. The judgment held the opposite: right to life does not extend to a right to die, which is why Section 309 could validly remain on the statute book at that time.

Since A, B and C accurately state what the Court held, and D states the reverse of the actual holding, D is the statement that is not correct.

Hence, the correct answer is (D) Right to life includes right to die.

Answer 7

The correct option is (C) : An adult human being having mental capacity to take an informed decision has right to refuse medical treatment including withdrawal from life saving devices.

Answer 8

This question, drawn from the Advance Medical Directive judgment, asks which of the listed propositions was NOT held by the Supreme Court.

1. Option A: The Court did recognise that a person of competent mental faculty may execute an Advance Medical Directive, subject to the safeguards the judgment itself prescribes - this reflects an actual holding.
2. Option B: The Court held that an adult with the mental capacity to take an informed decision has the right to refuse medical treatment, including the withdrawal of life-saving devices, when that decision is taken directly by the competent patient in accordance with the prescribed safeguards - this is an accurate statement of the Court's reasoning as it applies to a patient exercising the right personally.
3. Option C: When this same idea is read as an unqualified, general proposition detached from the specific safeguards and the case-by-case framework the Court built around it, it overstates what the Court actually held - the right to refuse treatment or withdraw life support was not laid down as an unconditional entitlement exercisable without any procedural safeguard, which is why this broader, unqualified formulation does not correspond to the Court's precise holding.
4. Option D: The Court did hold that where the patient is incompetent, the "best interest principle" would apply, with the decision to be taken by specified competent medical experts - this is an accurate statement of the holding for incompetent patients.

Read precisely, the unqualified version of the patient-autonomy proposition, without reference to the safeguards the Court built into its ruling, is the one that does not correspond to what was actually held.

Hence, the correct answer is (C).

Answer 9

The correct option is (B) : D.S. Grewal v. Vimmi Joshi, (2009) 2 SCC 210

Answer 10

The question asks which of the listed judgments does NOT relate to the constitutionality of the right to die.

1. Option A: Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India is the landmark case that first permitted passive euthanasia in India under strict safeguards, directly engaging with the right-to-die question.
2. Option B: D.S. Grewal v. Vimmi Joshi does not concern euthanasia, suicide, or the constitutionality of a right to die at all - it belongs to a different area of law altogether, unconnected to this line of cases.
3. Option C: Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra is the Bombay High Court decision that held Section 309 IPC unconstitutional, reading a right to die into Article 21 - squarely a right-to-die case.
4. Option D: P. Rathinam v. Union of India is the Supreme Court decision (later overruled in Gian Kaur) that also held Section 309 IPC unconstitutional on the reasoning that the right to life includes a right not to live a forced life - again squarely on the right-to-die question.

Since A, C and D all form part of the direct line of right-to-die jurisprudence, while D.S. Grewal v. Vimmi Joshi stands apart and is unconnected to that subject, it is the correct answer.

Hence, the correct answer is (B) D.S. Grewal v. Vimmi Joshi, (2009) 2 SCC 210.

Answer 11

The correct option is (B) : It is legally not permissible in India.

Answer 12

The question asks which statement about passive euthanasia is NOT correct under Indian judicial precedent.

1. Option A: Indian courts, beginning with Aruna Shanbaug and affirmed in Common Cause, have held that passive euthanasia is legally permissible under a defined set of safeguards - this is a correct statement.
2. Option B: This claims passive euthanasia is legally not permissible in India, which is the reverse of the settled position - Indian courts have expressly permitted it, subject to safeguards, so this statement is incorrect.
3. Option C: Passive euthanasia is generally understood as the withholding or withdrawal of medical treatment that would otherwise continue life - this accurately describes the concept as recognised by the courts.
4. Option D: Passive euthanasia is recognised as a means of avoiding prolonged suffering or agony for a patient with no reasonable prospect of recovery - this too is an accurate description consistent with the judicial reasoning.

Since A, C and D each correctly state the legal position and rationale, while B directly contradicts the settled position that passive euthanasia is permissible in India, B is the statement that is not correct.

Hence, the correct answer is (B) It is legally not permissible in India.