Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 1. This petition was filed on 10 January, 2001. It was placed before the Court the next day. On the date when it was filed and on the next day an issue was raised by counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ebrahim Kabir, Advocate that the petitioners are seeking a declaration from the Court and the Court is called upon to take a decision on the issue of euthanasia. Taking the submissions made at the Bar of the Court on their face value, the Court was under the impression that indeed this petition may be raising genuine issues about euthanasia and we had no reason to suspect that the picture would change after notices were issued on the writ petition. 2. Euthanasia in broad concept is a technical term which in simpler terms may be understood as mercy killing. The issue is being debated all over the world. It is debatable because it is not, compatible with the code of conduct of the medical profession, which obliges the doctor to preserve life. The issue is debatable if it is brought to the Court as it is not the place of the court to end a life, except by due process of the law as indictment or conviction. 3. The person upon whom the issue has been made is one Kanchan Devi. She is in a coma. The priority of the Court at the time the petition was brought was to forthwith make arrangements for medical attention for this lady who has been in coma for quite some time. This was necessary because once an issue was put in the lap of the Court, until the questions raised in the petition were answered the Court owed a public duty that the woman involved should not be denied any access to medical attention if it was required. On the petition as it was presented prima facie and on the issues which were made, the Court was given to believe that the issues in their purity need to be debated academically, and the Court granted indulgence. This matter was brought as a public Interest Litigation. Notices were issued on the petition. 4. There were also side issues which were presented. Doctors "extracting" money was mentioned. It was contended that while Kanchan Devi was in coma and was unable to sign any cheque a sum of Rs. This matter was brought as a public Interest Litigation. Notices were issued on the petition. 4. There were also side issues which were presented. Doctors "extracting" money was mentioned. It was contended that while Kanchan Devi was in coma and was unable to sign any cheque a sum of Rs. 9000/- was withdrawn from the bank in her name. The questions was who had tailored the situation to take the thumb impression of Kanchan Devi when she lay in coma? The record apparently shows that the husband of Kanchan Devi, the banker and others who might be present at the Nursing Home, seem to be involved in withdrawing money from a bank account of a person who had no capacity to even think or be conscious to the world. The ethics of this is debatable. 5. This apart, setting the priorities in this matter right, the Court called upon the State counsel present when the proceedings of 11 and 12 January, 2001 took place, to see that para-medical facilities be provided to Kanchan Devi. During the course of the day the State counsel took instructions to report to the Court that Patna Medical College Hospital, Patna, will receive the patient and take care of her should the family bring her, and if it so desires. This situation having been taken care of, now the Court thought it appropriate to issue notices to the respondents who had been arrayed in the petition. Nineteen (19) respondents had been arrayed at the time when the Court issued notices. Of these the Court made clear that it is not necessary that the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha should be issued notices. Arraying of these bodies in itself is another illustration of what was attempted to be debated before the Court. 6. On record the issues raised in the petition are : (1) Whether Kanchan Devi is entitled to receive free medical care from the government as her fundamental right to life is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India? (2) Whether Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (attempt to commit suicide) is ultra vires to the Constitution of India? (3) Whether Kanchan Devi has a right to die with dignity? (2) Whether Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (attempt to commit suicide) is ultra vires to the Constitution of India? (3) Whether Kanchan Devi has a right to die with dignity? (4) Whether the five petitioners should be prosecuted under Sections 305 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (abetment of suicide of a child or insane person, abetment of suicide) and if they could be charged with abetment when these sections of the Penal Code have no relevance? (5) Whether religions professing right to life as sacrosanct have no relevance in the given situation? 7. If the issues were pure as they were being stated perhaps the Court would have considered answering them academically but upon issue of notice the Court finds that someone, somewhere is making capital out of this case. Meanwhile, the Court is being placed in the Dharmsankat that if something happened to Kanchan Devi, it will be on the hands of the Court. 8. We have no hesitation in declaring at this point that this was an ill-advised petition. 9. There are certain advantages in the adversary system. Both sides of a story will be told in Court. Those who were put under notice brought an entirely different story. The petitioners had not truthfully stated the facts before the High Court. Before the present petition had been filed the five petitioners were pursuing a different legal action a claim for compensation or damages before the Consumer Forum and were taking issues with the Doctors who may have treated Kanchan Devi. Who were these five petitioners? Petitioner No. 1, Tarkeshwar Chandrabanshi is the husband. Petitioner No. 2, Saryug Singh is her father-in-law. Petitioner No. 3 Baiju Ram is the father of Kanchan Devi. Petitioner No. 4 Smt. Lakhiya Devi is the mother of Kanchan Devi and petitioner no. 5 Sarwan Kumar is the brother of Kanchan Devi. 10. It was argued on this petition that the Court may grant a declaration that Kanchan Devi be put to death, not to mince words. Can the Court issue such a declaration? 11. In this petition itself the petitioners are also seeking direction from the Court suggesting that the organs of Kanchan Devi may be donated to an Organ Bank. 10. It was argued on this petition that the Court may grant a declaration that Kanchan Devi be put to death, not to mince words. Can the Court issue such a declaration? 11. In this petition itself the petitioners are also seeking direction from the Court suggesting that the organs of Kanchan Devi may be donated to an Organ Bank. The legal plea raised is that the Court may give a direction that rules be framed to make provision for such an exercise under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994. 12. On 12 November, 2000 the husband of Kanchan Devi, Tarkeshwar Chandrabanshi sent a representation, so he claims, to the Chief Minister, Bihar, the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, the President of India and the Prime Minister of India. This representation is appended as Annexure 1. By this representation the petitioner was seeking financial assistance as he contended that he was in straightened circumstances. When the Court made arrangements for medical attention for Kanchan Devi as she lay in coma, the petitioner filed an application before the Superintendent of Patna Medical College and Hospital. This application is dated 22 January, 2001 praying that she should receive medical attention so that she receives a new life. Plainly, the question before the Court now was one of who exactly was making the submission that Kanchan Devis life should be taken, she may be put to sleep and the Court declare that euthanasia is a right which is guaranteed to her? Kanchan Devi was in coma and could not have made the pleading. No Doctor has suggested it. The brief was given to counsel on 25 December 2000. The last record is the letter addressed to the Chief Minister, Bihar, the Human Rights Commission, the President of India and the Prime Minister of India. This petition, in effect, is that whatever other complaints may be, she seeks financial assistance. After the Court had issued notice on this petition, the petitioners husband applied to the Superintendent of Patna Medical College and Hospital and sought financial asistance. 13. Either the concept of euthanasia has entirely been misunderstood or apparently this plea was suggested to the petitioners for the purpose of making a wide, well-publicised debate out of this Public Interest Litigation. After the Court had issued notice on this petition, the petitioners husband applied to the Superintendent of Patna Medical College and Hospital and sought financial asistance. 13. Either the concept of euthanasia has entirely been misunderstood or apparently this plea was suggested to the petitioners for the purpose of making a wide, well-publicised debate out of this Public Interest Litigation. Much time of the Court has been consumed, as the record already shows, in giving attention to this matter and taking submissions of counsel on face value that such issues do arise. 14. Euthanasia is a debatable concept. It is not that the Court has not done its home work on what the issues may be. If the Court were to go into the concept, it would have to be examined with the available record, decisions of the Court if available, report in local journals and legal journals and so on. There is no standardised legislation on the subject of euthanasia and the matter before the Court was not of a patient who was conscious that he has terminal disease and was conscious of the fact that in the days to come death was imminent. It was not the case that the patient and the medical professional were presenting a case that euthanasia may be an escape for her. Even in such circumstances, the Courts have been hesitant in giving a declaration, as the job of the Judge is not to take life. The Hippocratic Oath also binds the doctor to try to save life. This concept stands reaffirmed by the Geneva Court in 1948. The medical fraternity had not abdicated its responsibility or sent the case before the High Court that assisted suicide, or euthanasia may be considered. The Court feels that there is a distinction between allowing a patient to die, and causing a patient to die. This Court is not about to make this distinction here, as this is not a proper case. 15. While this matter was presented, the State counsel drew the attention of the Court to the indiscriminate publicity of this case being encouraged by the petitioners and counsel alike. The case was blown up in the newspapers and other media. In one of the newspapers there was statement of counsel that organs of the patient are available for research. 15. While this matter was presented, the State counsel drew the attention of the Court to the indiscriminate publicity of this case being encouraged by the petitioners and counsel alike. The case was blown up in the newspapers and other media. In one of the newspapers there was statement of counsel that organs of the patient are available for research. The Court was told that such statement had never been given, but the petition shows in paragraph 5 that there is a statement that organs of the patient should be utilised. So between the statement of the counsel and the press statement there is no contradiction and nothing was shown to the Court that it had been contradicted. 16. On another day, i.e., day before yesterday, after lunch recess counsel for the State complained of another exercise which was undertaken. During the lunch recess itself a statement was made by the counsel for the petitioners that the Court had issued direction and the press statement had already been shot off to the local dailies. It is fortunate that the press was careful not to put all of it in print. The Court asked learned counsel for the petitioners whether he had gone to the press while the issue was being debated at the Court. Initially there was an attempt on his part to say that he had not given a statement to the press. The State counsel produced a paper in which the press statement had been issued. Counsel for the petitioners admitted that the letter pad belonged to his Chamber. It was indicated by the counsel that somebody has misused the letter pad. The Court has left this matter at this. 17. Euthanasia was a matter which was never pleaded before the Court. The patient was not conscious enough to express a wish to die, or to be helped to die. The Physician has not suggested it. Who had suggested this plea to be raised before the High Court in a Public Interest Litigation? Was it the petitioners? Did the counsel suggest it? The Court was constrained to ask this question, now that the record as it lies is not one of purely presenting a plea for euthanasia. There is even a presumption of withdrawal of money by using thumb impression of Kanchan Devi. Can this be done? Was it the petitioners? Did the counsel suggest it? The Court was constrained to ask this question, now that the record as it lies is not one of purely presenting a plea for euthanasia. There is even a presumption of withdrawal of money by using thumb impression of Kanchan Devi. Can this be done? However arranged, it may have to face an inquiry as to how money was withdrawn from the bank by an account holder, who does not have the capacity to draw a cheque. If Kanchan Devi is in coma, that amount would lie sealed, but the money has been withdrawn. 18. The record also shows too many admissions into the hospital, and withdrawals, as the Doctor submitted, even against medical advice. These are serious issues. The five petitioners claim that Kanchan Devi is the victim of negligence. The Doctors raised an issue that all five of the petitioners, particularly the husband of Kanchan Devi, are taking advantage of the situation and extracting money from them and using the situation for black mail. The Court is not inclined to go into these issues in the present writ petition either, as they could be decided elsewhere. 19. The petitioners never told the Court faithfully that they had filed a claim petition for compensation before the Consumers Forum. It is the respondents in this case who came out with this fact as they had been put under notice by the Consumer Forum. 20. The Court indicated to counsel for the petitioners before lunch recess that euthanasia was a plea which was not actually in issue, as the five petitioners, particularly the husband of Kanchan Devi, were seeking financial assistance for the treatment. Since so much time of the Court has been taken on this petition and finding that capital was being made out of the present petition in the media, this Court otherwise not scheduled to return, but as another Bench returned after the lunch recess. But this Court did ask counsel for the petitioners whether euthanasia is actually an issue in the petition. When the questions of compensation and cost and right to treatment were also coming in, euthanasia did not seem to be the main issue of this Public Interest Litigation. The iunch recess was the opportunity provided to prepare an answer. The Court did not receive any answer from the counsel for the petitioners. 21. When the questions of compensation and cost and right to treatment were also coming in, euthanasia did not seem to be the main issue of this Public Interest Litigation. The iunch recess was the opportunity provided to prepare an answer. The Court did not receive any answer from the counsel for the petitioners. 21. Counsel for the petitioners is young at the Bar. If it had not been for his age, we would have recommended to the Chairman of the Bar Council to consider action against him for suggesting a plea to his client. 22. In such a case, and as the facts have been presented, the Court is not about to give any declaration on the subject of euthanasia. The Court cannot help expressing its disappointment in the case. 23. The Court has recorded no comments on the complaints of the petitioners which may be pending in other forums. 24. The State counsel brought to the notice of the court that while this matter was being debated, petitioner no. 1, the husband of Kanchan Devi, has not ceased to make representations at the Patna Medical College and Hospital intimidating the administration in a matter which has nothing to do with this case. One such letter written by petitioner no. 1 on 7 February, 2001 is being left on the record. The Court is not reproducing its contents, as it is on record. 25. Counsel representing respondents 14 and 15 (Dr. Smt. Renuka Keshari and Dr. Hemant Kumar) reports that petitioner no. 1, Tarkeshwar Chandrabanshi, has a political platform and seems to be more interested in making capital out of his wifes case even in the tragic situation in which she lies, and is writing to constitutional authorities in the name of Principal Organiser of "Bhrashtachar Mukti Sena" and "Garib Samaj Chintak Manch, Bihar". These communications are dated 24 September, 2000 and 20 November, 1999. The Court is not reproducing the details of these press releases or communications either. 26. In reply to the issues raised in the petition, as enumerated in Paragraph 6 above : (1) Whether Kanchan Devi is entitled to receive free medical care from the government as her fundamental right to life is guaranteed under the Constitution is a valid question. The government, in this case, has agreed to assist the patient. 26. In reply to the issues raised in the petition, as enumerated in Paragraph 6 above : (1) Whether Kanchan Devi is entitled to receive free medical care from the government as her fundamental right to life is guaranteed under the Constitution is a valid question. The government, in this case, has agreed to assist the patient. Whatever indiscretions might have been committed by the petitioners or their counsel, should they present Kanchan as a patient at Patna Medical College and Hospital, she will be taken in and given medical help. (2) The issue of the vires of Section 309 of the India Penal Code is irrelevant here. An unconscious person cannot commit suicide. Suicide is a conscious, willed act of taking ones own lifenot someone elses. (3) Whether anyone has a right to die with dignity, is not an issue in the case. It is a rhetorical question. Who would have the power to decree that death must be with dignity? The petitioners and their counsel seem to be talking of suicide by a patient who is unconscious, and organs for transplant extracted out of a patient who is alive, thus the question seems incoherent and misplaced. In the case of any seriously ill, handicapped or comatose person, the dignity with which they live or die is in the hands of those who take care of them. (4) The question of abetment to suicide is also irrelevant, as suicide is not the question (see point 2 above). (5) Whether religions professing right of life have relevance is a question for the personal conscience of those involved, not for this Court. This concludes the courts discussion of the actual points raised. The issue of euthanasia has not been properly raised or framed in this matter. No solid ground has been laid for raising it, by documenting the condition of the patient and obtaining medical opinion. In fact, some doctors have claimed that her condition was improving at one point, and it appears that the family may have even ignored medical advice or acted contrary to it. The case has been tainted by excess of publicity, and further dramatic statments have been made in the press even as this judgment was being prepared and signed. Allegations of attempts at extortion further cloud the situation. The case has been tainted by excess of publicity, and further dramatic statments have been made in the press even as this judgment was being prepared and signed. Allegations of attempts at extortion further cloud the situation. The question has not been raised in purity, and this court is certainly not in a position to, in effect, give an order that this patient should be killed, on the basis of anything so far argued in this case. 27 Dismissed. 28. The bank records which were filed before the Court and lie in sealed cover with the Registrar General, will be returned to the State Bank of India.