Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme 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