This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.
Right to life — Includes right to die with dignity — Passive euthanasia and Advance Medical Directives (AMD) are permissible under Article 21
Bysclaw
Mar 15, 2026
By sclaw
Related Post
”Euthanasia ” Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 21 — Right to life — Includes right to die with dignity — Passive euthanasia and Advance Medical Directives (AMD) are permissible under Article 21 — Active euthanasia is not permissible — Withdrawal or withholding of medical treatment is a constitutional right derived from the dignity, liberty, privacy, and self-determination of an individual — This right extends to incompetent patients as well.
Mar 15, 2026
sclaw
Reservation Policy — Other Backward Classes (OBC) — Creamy Layer Exclusion — Interpretation of Office Memorandum (OM) dated 08.09.1993 and Clarificatory Letter dated 14.10.2004 — Salary income exclusion — Hostile discrimination — Held, the clarificatory letter dated 14.10.2004, particularly paragraph 9 thereof, should not be interpreted in isolation or in a manner that overrides the substantive scheme of the 1993 OM — Overemphasis on the 2004 letter making income alone determinative without considering parental status and category of service would defeat the framework of exclusion under the 1993 OM — Determination of creamy layer status solely on income brackets without reference to posts and status parameters in the 1993 OM is unsustainable — Hostile discrimination arises when similarly placed individuals are treated differently without a constitutionally sustainable basis, thereby attracting provisions of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution — Appeals dismissed
Mar 15, 2026
sclaw
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Writ Petition — Delay and Laches — Doctrine of laches is a flexible rule of practice, not a rigid rule of law, to be applied on case-to-case basis based on judicial discretion — It requires balancing the equity of not allowing stale claims against the constitutional duty to enforce fundamental rights — Key considerations include inordinate delay, explanation for delay, and prejudice to third-party rights or settled matters — Unexplained delay is critical; delay attributable to the State’s conduct cannot be used against the petitioner — Claims affecting the public at large or challenging the vires of a statute might warrant a less strict application of laches, especially when addressing historical injustices or transformative constitutionalism — The Court must weigh the need for finality against the need to rectify injustice and has the power to mould relief to minimize disruption while enforcing fundamental rights.
Mar 15, 2026
sclaw
