Legal Reasoning Questions for CLAT | QB Set 53

The law on euthanasia in India has evolved through judicial interpretation, particularly in the context of passive euthanasia, which refers to the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment. The Supreme Court first engaged with this issue in Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011), where it permitted passive euthanasia under strict safeguards and recognised the role of the High Courts in approving such decisions. This position was significantly developed in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), where the Court recognised the “right to die with dignity” as an intrinsic part of Article 21 of the Constitution. It also validated the concept of advance directives or “living wills,” allowing individuals to specify their medical preferences in case of terminal illness or incapacitation. 

More recently, developments such as those emerging from the Harish Rana case reflect a continued judicial effort to simplify procedural complexities and make passive euthanasia more accessible while maintaining safeguards against misuse. The Court has emphasised that the decision must be taken with informed consent, medical evaluation by competent boards, and adherence to procedural guidelines to ensure that it is not arbitrary or coerced. Importantly, active euthanasia *where a deliberate act is done to end life) remains illegal in India and is treated as an offence under the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the Indian legal framework strikes a careful balance between preserving life and recognising individual autonomy and dignity at the end of life, with passive euthanasia now occupying a legally permissible but tightly regulated space.

Q1.

Rohan, aged 35, has been in a Permanent Vegetative State (PVS) for 10 years. His family approaches the hospital seeking withdrawal of artificial feeding through a PEG tube. The doctors argue that removing the feeding tube would amount to starving him and thus constitute active euthanasia. In light of recent legal developments, which of the following is correct?

A. Withdrawal of feeding tube is always illegal in India
B. Feeding tube removal amounts to abetment of suicide
C. Such withdrawal requires prior court approval in all cases
D. Feeding tube is a medical treatment and can be withdrawn under safeguards

Answer: D
Explanation: CANH is recognised as medical treatment; it can be withdrawn under proper medical board approvals and family consent, as clarified in Harish Rana.

Q2.

Meera is in an irreversible coma and unable to express consent. Her family wishes to discontinue life support. The hospital is hesitant, fearing legal consequences under IPC provisions related to suicide and abetment. Considering current Indian legal principles, which statement best reflects the correct legal position?

A. Withdrawal amounts to abetment under IPC Section 306
B. Withdrawal is equivalent to attempt to suicide under Section 309
C. Withdrawal is legal only if Parliament enacts a law
D. Withdrawal does not amount to suicide or abetment if procedure is followed

Answer: D
Explanation: Withdrawal of futile treatment under judicial safeguards is not treated as suicide or abetment under IPC Sections 306 or 309.

Q3.

A competent patient suffering from a terminal illness refuses further medical treatment, stating a desire to die naturally without life-prolonging interventions. The doctors are unsure whether respecting this decision would violate Article 21 of the Constitution. Which of the following is the most appropriate legal position?

A. Right to die with dignity is part of Article 21
B. Right to refuse treatment is not recognised in India
C. Doctors must continue treatment regardless of patient consent
D. Only courts can decide such matters in all cases

Answer: A
Explanation: Article 21 includes the right to die with dignity, allowing competent patients to refuse life-prolonging medical treatment.

Q4.

A hospital receives a request from the family of a patient in PVS to withdraw life support. The hospital constitutes a primary medical board which certifies that recovery is impossible. Before proceeding, what is the next legally required step under current guidelines?

A. Immediate withdrawal based on family consent alone
B. Constitution of a secondary independent medical board
C. Mandatory approval from the High Court
D. Approval from the State Government

Answer: B
Explanation: A second independent medical board must confirm the findings of the primary board before withdrawal of treatment is permitted.

Q5.

In a case involving withdrawal of life support, the doctors emphasise that their decision is guided by whether continued treatment benefits the patient. They clarify that the aim is not to cause death but to avoid prolonging suffering without recovery. This approach reflects which legal principle?

A. Doctrine of necessity
B. Principle of proportionality
C. Best interests of the patient test
D. Precautionary principle

Answer: C
Explanation: The “best interests” test evaluates whether continuing treatment serves any meaningful benefit to the patient, not whether death is desirable.