Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

Supreme court clarifying the procedure, safeguards, and the crucial role of the High Court on Withdrawal of Medical Treatment

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgement on the withdrawal of medical treatment, clarifying the procedure, safeguards, and the crucial role of the High Court in such cases. The judgement, pronounced on January 24, 2023, has provided essential guidelines and addressed various aspects related to Advance Directives and the decision-making process.

The headline of the judgement, "High Court's Discretion in Granting Approval for Withdrawal of Medical Treatment," reflects one of the key takeaways from the verdict. The High Court has been granted the authority to constitute an independent committee of experienced doctors specializing in critical care. This committee will assess the situation and provide recommendations on granting approval for the withdrawal of medical treatment.

The judgement emphasizes the promptness of decision-making in cases involving withdrawal of medical treatment, recognizing that delays in such matters can have significant consequences. It states, "The High Court shall render its decision at the earliest as such matters cannot brook any delay." The principle of "best interests of the patient" is to be given paramount consideration while arriving at a decision.

Furthermore, the judgement highlights the procedure to be followed when there is no Advance Directive in place. It states, "In cases where there is no Advance Directive, the procedure and safeguards are to be the same as applied to cases where Advance Directives are in existence." This ensures that patients without an Advance Directive receive equal protection and consideration.

The judgement also underlines the importance of communication and dissemination of the High Court's decision. It mandates that the Registrar Generals of all High Courts, Health Secretaries, and Chief Medical Officers be informed and provided with a copy of the judgement for proper implementation and adherence.

Quoting the judgement, Chief Justice K.M. Joseph said, "The High Court's role in granting approval for the withdrawal of medical treatment is crucial to safeguard the rights and interests of the patients. It ensures that decisions are made in their best interests, taking into account all relevant factors."

The judgement has set a precedent for future cases involving the withdrawal of medical treatment. It clarifies the roles of different stakeholders, emphasizes the importance of consent, and establishes the High Court as the final authority in granting approval for such decisions.

This judgement will not only guide medical practitioners and hospitals but also provide clarity to patients, their families, and legal professionals on the legal framework and safeguards surrounding the withdrawal of medical treatment.

Overall, the Supreme Court's verdict on the withdrawal of medical treatment brings much-needed clarity, transparency, and protection for patients and their families during challenging times when tough decisions need to be made.

Date of Decision: January 24, 2023

COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) vs  UNION OF INDIA INDIAN

Latest Legal News