Supreme Court of India allows 'living wills' for terminally ill

The Supreme Court of India today, the March 9, 2018 delivered a landmark judgement, which allowed the  individuals to draw up "living wills". The implication of this is 'passive euthanasia' is permitted, with which it is now possible to withdraw medical treatment to hasten a person's death. However, the court also made it clear that this can be done only as per the strict guidelines are adhered to.

                                                      Image source: Getty Image

A living will sets out a patient's wishes in regard to how they want to be treated if they are terminally ill.

The Judges while delivering the judgement had observed that the right to die was a fundamental right and an advance directive by a person in the form of a living will could be approved by the courts.

Passive euthanasia: What it means?

When a patient dies because the doctors either do or do not carryout something to keep a patient alive or stop something that would keep them alive. They might include:

• switching off life-support machines

• disconnecting a feeding tube

• not carrying out a life-extending operation

• not administering life-extending drugs      

The moot point to consider is that how would the courts could guarantee 'living wills' were not drafted through coercive manes!

Supreme Court terms triple talaq 'illegal' & Unconstitutional

Doing good to women

 The Supreme Court of India by a 3:2 (majority) verdict ruled that the practice prevalent among the Muslims of divorcing through ‘triple talaq’ is void, illegal, and unconstitutional.

The Chief Justice JS Khehar and Justice S Abdul Nazeer favoured putting on hold for six months the practice of triple talaq, asking the government to come out with a law in this regard,  while Justices Kurian Joseph, RF Nariman and UU Lalit held it as violative of the Constitution. The apex court has also ruled that the injunction will continue in case the government fails to bring the law in force within six months.

The differences how their lordships viewed this issue surfaced with the Khehar and Abdul Nazeer, holding the view that “Talaq-e-biddat is an integral part of Sunni community practiced since 1000 years.” Their views were opposed by Justices RF Nariman, UU Lalit and Kurien who called the instant practice of handing over divorced to be unconstitutional.

Before the delivery of the judgment, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, (AIMPLB) aired their views to the CCN-News18 that it was unconstitutional for the judiciary to interfere with the religious practices of Muslims. They further went on to say that there cannot be a uniform civil code in a diverse nation like India, but such views did not hold water with the apex court.

Former attorney-general Mukul Rohatgi expressed happiness for his having argued the case. Surprisingly, support for the judgment came from the Congress Party.

It may be noted  that India joins the following countries in declaring the practice un-Islamic  and what is of interest to know is that many of them are predominantly Muslim Countries.

Algeria, Bangladesh, Brunei, Cyprus, Egypt. Indonesia, Iraq, Iran Jordan, Malaysia, Pakistan. Sri Lanka.Turkey, Syria, Tunisia, UAE,

All in all, it is a historical judgment that protects the liberties of Muslim Women.