Historic Legislative Move: The Karnataka Legislative Assembly has passed a motion that recognizes a limited “Right to Die,” allowing patients in terminal or irreversible conditions to opt for passive euthanasia, which includes withdrawing life support after thorough medical evaluation and approval processes. This aligns with the Supreme Court’s earlier rulings on euthanasia and end-of-life care in India.
Framework for Implementation: The new guidelines establish a framework for medical boards in hospitals to certify requests for dignified deaths. This involves a primary board at the hospital level and a secondary board at the district level, ensuring that decisions are made with proper oversight.
Legal Clarity: This move is notable as it provides clarity on the often-misunderstood concepts of “living wills” and advance directives, enhancing legal protections for individuals wishing to refuse or withdraw medical interventions.
Concerns and Support: While supporters view this as a step toward affirming human dignity and autonomy, critics express concerns about potential misuse and the need for robust safeguards to protect vulnerable patients from coercion.
Next Steps: Local health authorities are expected to issue detailed directives and counseling procedures shortly, aimed at educating medical professionals and families about the legal and ethical guidelines associated with these decisions.
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that High Courts can quash FIRs at the nascent stage of investigation under Section 482 CrPC/ Section 528 BNSS if the allegations do not disclose a prima facie offence. In a recent judgment, the Court quashed an FIR against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi, stating that the case was a clear abuse of the legal process.
The Delhi High Court, in 𝑭𝒂𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒗𝒔. 𝑵.𝑾.𝑮.𝑬.𝑳 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 (𝑨𝑹𝑩.𝑷. 1318/2024), ruled that when an arbitration agreement does not specify a seat or venue, the court's jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, must be determined based on Sections 16 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The ruling, delivered by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri on March 20, 2025, emphasized that 𝗷𝘂𝗿𝗶�...
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India in Disortho S.A.S. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. held that Indian courts have jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator even if the arbitration venue is in a foreign country, provided the contract specifies Indian law as the governing law.