Parties and roles: Common Cause (A Registered Society) is the petitioner who initiated or carried the matter to the Supreme Court. Union of India & Anr. is the respondent opposing the relief or defending the challenged action, decision, law or proceeding. The labels “plaintiff” and “defendant” are generally not used here because this is a constitutional writ proceeding. Medical technology can prolong biological life even when recovery is impossible. Patients may lose capacity to communicate, leaving families and doctors uncertain whether life support may lawfully be withdrawn. The petition sought recognition of a competent person's advance directive and a dignified natural death, while guarding against abuse, neglect or disguised killing. Procedural and real-world context: 2005: Common Cause sought recognition of living wills and passive euthanasia. | 2011: Aruna Shanbaug decision permitted passive euthanasia under court supervision. In simple terms, the Court had to resolve does Article 21 include a right to die with dignity at the end of life? Are passive euthanasia and advance medical directives lawful? What procedural safeguards are necessary? The outcome mattered immediately because the Court unanimously recognized the right to die with dignity as part of Article 21, permitted withdrawal/withholding of futile life support, and validated advance directives. It distinguished passive euthanasia from active killing and prescribed multi-level medical and judicial safeguards pending legislation. Procedural setting: 2005: Common Cause sought recognition of living wills and passive euthanasia. | 2011: Aruna Shanbaug decision permitted passive euthanasia under court supervision. | 09 Mar 2018: Constitution Bench recognized advance directives and laid safeguards. | 2023: Supreme Court simplified procedures. The central problem before the Court was does Article 21 include a right to die with dignity at the end of life? Are passive euthanasia and advance medical directives lawful? What procedural safeguards are necessary? The controversy was considered in the framework of Medical Council regulations; transplantation and criminal-law provisions; advance-directive framework created by Court, together with Constitution arts.21, 32 and 142. The wider importance of the case lies in dignity in dying; bodily autonomy; informed consent; substituted judgment/best interests; passive euthanasia; procedural safeguards.

Petitioner: autonomy and dignity include refusing invasive treatment and executing a living will. | Union: life must be protected; advance directives could be forged or misused, and Parliament should design safeguards. Competing positions in context: Common Cause (A Registered Society)'s position: as the petitioner, Common Cause (A Registered Society) sought the relief indicated by the questions of law and challenged the opposing action or interpretation. The claim was that the Court should apply the governing provisions consistently with Dignity in dying; bodily autonomy; informed consent; substituted judgment/best interests; passive euthanasia; procedural safeguards. Union of India & Anr.'s position: as respondent, Union of India & Anr. resisted that relief, defended the impugned measure or decision, or proposed a narrower interpretation of the Court's power and the applicable law. The Court therefore had to test these submissions against Medical Council regulations; transplantation and criminal-law provisions; advance-directive framework created by Court and Constitution arts.21, 32 and 142, the record of the proceedings and binding precedent. This summary states the principal controversy in accessible language; the official judgment remains authoritative for counsel-specific submissions and paragraph references.

The Court unanimously recognized the right to die with dignity as part of Article 21, permitted withdrawal/withholding of futile life support, and validated advance directives. It distinguished passive euthanasia from active killing and prescribed multi-level medical and judicial safeguards pending legislation. Patient autonomy, informed consent and best interests guide decisions; procedures were later simplified in 2023. Effect of the decision: the ruling explains or applies Dignity in dying; bodily autonomy; informed consent; substituted judgment/best interests; passive euthanasia; procedural safeguards and binds the parties to the operative directions made in W.P.(C) No. 215/2005. It also guides lower courts and public authorities on materially similar questions under Medical Council regulations; transplantation and criminal-law provisions; advance-directive framework created by Court. Scope and caution: only the ratio decidendi and operative directions of the signed judgment are binding; summaries should not be treated as substitutes for the judgment, separate opinions, later review orders or subsequent precedent.

Medical Council regulations; transplantation and criminal-law provisions; advance-directive framework created by Court

Constitution arts.21, 32 and 142

Dignity in dying; bodily autonomy; informed consent; substituted judgment/best interests; passive euthanasia; procedural safeguards