The Incomplete Case of Aruna Shanbaug
1
CARTOONSCAPE I n the Aruna Shanbaug judgment, the Supreme Court produced one of its fin- est verdicts. The three clear, but nu- anced, distinctions it made are a valuable contribution to Indian jurispru- dence and have far-reaching implications for social life since each qualitatively diminishes the arbitrary behaviour of those in authority. The first refers to the extensive and thorough deliberations it offered on the nature of hu- man life. The court examined medical litera- ture and the accompanying ethical deliberations in bio-ethics to address the fol- lowing key questions that were crucial to the case. When can one say that a person is brain- dead and in a permanent vegetative state? What are the rights of such a person? And what are the responsibilities of the care pro- viders and of the state when a person is de- clared to be in a permanent vegetative state? The court provided clear guidelines on each question. This has implications not just for vulnerable persons such as Aruna, but also for the whole new area of human organ trans- plant that is mercifully growing. These obser- vations meet the highest standards of global jurisprudence. A role to further principles The second is its verdict on who is the “next friend” of Aruna — the social activist, Pinki Virani, or the nurses at King Edward Memo- rial (KEM) Hospital in Mumbai who were caring for Aruna. In other words, who is to decide what is in Aruna’s best interest? Should passive euthanasia be initiated, which is what Pinki Virani wanted, or should she be allowed to die naturally when her body had run its course, which is what the nurses want- ed? The court, reviewing the stellar care given at KEM, gave a clear verdict that the nurses were the “next friend”. This too is a major contribution to Indian jurisprudence since it clarified the status, rights and responsibilities of a “next friend”. Brilliant. The third is its approval of “passive eu- thanasia” and the stringent procedures that must be followed when such an initiative is to be undertaken. All three elements of the Aruna Shanbaug judgment show that the higher Indian judi- ciary has much to contribute to the growth of ethical and legal principles in any constitu- tional order. On reading the judgment, I was proud of our Supreme Court. Aruna Shanbaug has died. And in her death, what we thought was a closed case now ap- pears to be a case that is only half done. If the first half was the judgment just discussed — which was the easy bit because it was aligned with public sentiment — the second half is to offer the full protection of the Indian Consti- tution to her assailant, Sohanlal Valmiki, and his extended family. This is the difficult part since it goes against the public mood that appears to have revived its hostility to him — because of media reports — for the horrific crime he committed 42 years ago. In the life of a constitutional democracy, 42 years is a long time. It is a time for evolution and a time for maturity. It is a time for error and a time for redress. It is time enough for wisdom. A new crime After 42 years, a new crime against the Constitution is in the making. Sohanlal Val- miki is being condemned to death by starva- tion. Our public institutions and a complicit society that care little for the last man (don’t believe the Antyodaya stuff being talked about; he’s a Valmiki), and that are acting lawlessly, are punishing him again. The court has to step in suo motu and intervene reversing what the public sector enterprise, NTPC Ltd., has done by dismis- sing Sohanlal Valmiki from his job as a daily wage labourer when his identity became known. He cycled 25 kilometres every day to earn Rs.261 a day by heaving coal. His two sons, also daily wage labourers, are now un- able to find work because his identity is known. Since they are his sons, they too must be punished like Cinna the poet in Shak- espeare’s Julius Caesar. The family, his wife, their sons, their wives and children — as a result of the media investigation — now face the agony of starvation and of intense live- lihood insecurity. There is no work available to them. If “passive euthanasia” was the gift of the first half of the court’s judgment, on the tragic Aruna Shanbaug case, “preventing unjust punishment” must be the gift of the second part of the court’s intervention. In a constitu- tional democracy, the court does not only have to adjudicate, but also has the responsib- ility to educate the citizen-public about the principles that underlie our constitutional order. And if that means going against the public mood, against a society and its in- stitutions whose actions are sometimes ty- rannical, then it must do so. Sohanlal Valmiki has been demonised. He committed a terrible crime, was tried, and the full force of the law was brought to bear on him. He was punished by the court. He has served his time in prison. Now, he faces double jeopardy. The Constitu- tion must protect him and his innocent family through the Supreme Court which is the cus- todian of its integrity. The Supreme Court must act suo motu or live with an incomplete case. If it does, it must take responsibility for diminishing a stellar Aruna Shanbaug judg- ment by its inaction. Here are the elements of the second half of the case, its afterlife so to speak. These have been culled from the investigations done by the newspapers. They need to be cross- checked. Sohanlal Valmiki was sentenced to serve a term of seven years at Yerwada jail for the ghastly crime he committed on Aruna Shanbaug. The details are known. The facts were presented before a court and he was given the term. (We will not go into the con- flictual relationship between Aruna Shan- baug and Sohanlal Valmiki, as reported in the papers, but shall detail his life only after the court sentence.) His daughter died when he was in jail. His wife left him because she could not bear the burden of his crime and the public humiliation that followed. But she came back. He thinks it was fated. He could not find work in Bombay and moved back to his in-law’s village, in western Uttar Pradesh. He is tormented by the crime he committed and, within the terms of his belief systems, was reported by his family to be in a terrible emotional state when the euthanasia case was being heard. He is today very remorseful, very religious and has found a guru. He is tired of the guilt, the humiliation and the hardship, and longs for release to another life. He has a troubled relationship with his sons who have to carry the burden of his crime. His wife has asked the sons to forgive him but they cannot since he has brought the curse of illiteracy and poverty upon them. His brothers are an- gry with him because he was the privileged one to be taken to the metropolis of Bombay, the land of opportunity, since their father thought he was the bright one who would make good for the whole family. He found anonymity when he returned to his village and rebuilt his life, content to be the “last man” neglected by the state. With all its dis- advantages, he found protection in obscurity and had accepted his fate to live out a life in a permanently deprived state till nature had run its course. His grandchildren just love him. As the lynch mob And then Aruna died. A new story had to be told. The media was on the move. We do not know what editorial and ethical guidelines were given to the investigative reporters but, as a result, Sohanlal Valmiki was plucked from his life of obscurity and placed before the glare lights of the national media. His life was dissected, his personal details revealed, and he was transported from the zone of qua- si-protection to the zone of complete insecu- rity. The assailant has been found and this is what he does. Here is where he lives. These are the names of his family members. In a competitive media atmosphere, he was stripped naked before the lights. We must reflect on what this means to a man at 66 or 72 years of age, from the Valmiki community, who has been living on daily wages. Is he a simple or a cunning man? I don’t know. Is he now a vulnerable man? Yes, he is. He was dismissed from his job by NTPC even though he had done nothing wrong at work. How can we have the assailant of Aruna Shanbaug on our wage rolls, is what NTPC feels, I suppose. His sons have been unable to find work as well. The court has to decide how to educate a society such that it stops acting as a lynch mob. It has to defend the Constitution in the second Sohanlal Valmiki case, as it did in the first Aruna Shanbaug judgment. It has to de- fend Sohanlal Valmiki’s rights and protect the livelihood of his family. We are a constitu- tional democracy, not a lynching one. It may mean going against the tide. But the court does not have to be popular. It has to be right and just. It has to intervene. The “right to life” that was so exquisitely elaborated on in the Aruna Shanbaug case will be enriched by its suo motu intervention. (Peter Ronald deSouza is professor at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies. The views expressed are personal.) The incomplete case of Aruna Shanbaug Forty-two years after the crime against Aruna Shanbaug, a new crime against the Constitution is in the making. Her assailant is being condemned to death by starvation. Public institutions and a complicit society are punishing him again. The Supreme Court must step in suo motu We are a constitutional democracy, not a lynching one. It may mean going against the tide. But the court does not have to be popular. It has to be just. And defend the Constitution for Sohanlal Valmiki as it did in the Aruna Shanbaug case. Peter Ronald deSouza The incomplete case of Aruna Shanbaug
-
Upload
mohit-gautam -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
2
description
The Incomplete Case of Aruna Shanbaug
Transcript of The Incomplete Case of Aruna Shanbaug
-
CARTOONSCAPE
In the Aruna Shanbaug judgment, theSupreme Court produced one of its fin-est verdicts. The three clear, but nu-anced, distinctions it made are avaluable contribution to Indian jurispru-dence and have far-reaching implications forsocial life since each qualitatively diminishesthe arbitrary behaviour of those in authority.The first refers to the extensive and thoroughdeliberations it offered on the nature of hu-man life. The court examined medical litera-ture and the accompanying ethicaldeliberations in bio-ethics to address the fol-lowing key questions that were crucial to thecase. When can one say that a person is brain-dead and in a permanent vegetative state?What are the rights of such a person? Andwhat are the responsibilities of the care pro-viders and of the state when a person is de-clared to be in a permanent vegetative state?The court provided clear guidelines on eachquestion. This has implications not just forvulnerable persons such as Aruna, but also forthe whole new area of human organ trans-plant that is mercifully growing. These obser-vations meet the highest standards of globaljurisprudence.
A role to further principlesThe second is its verdict on who is the next
friend of Aruna the social activist, PinkiVirani, or the nurses at King Edward Memo-rial (KEM) Hospital in Mumbai who werecaring for Aruna. In other words, who is todecide what is in Arunas best interest?Should passive euthanasia be initiated, whichis what Pinki Virani wanted, or should she beallowed to die naturally when her body hadrun its course, which is what the nurses want-ed? The court, reviewing the stellar care givenat KEM, gave a clear verdict that the nurseswere the next friend. This too is a majorcontribution to Indian jurisprudence since itclarified the status, rights and responsibilitiesof a next friend. Brilliant.
The third is its approval of passive eu-thanasia and the stringent procedures thatmust be followed when such an initiative is tobe undertaken.
All three elements of the Aruna Shanbaugjudgment show that the higher Indian judi-ciary has much to contribute to the growth of
ethical and legal principles in any constitu-tional order. On reading the judgment, I wasproud of our Supreme Court.
Aruna Shanbaug has died. And in her death,what we thought was a closed case now ap-pears to be a case that is only half done. If thefirst half was the judgment just discussed which was the easy bit because it was alignedwith public sentiment the second half is tooffer the full protection of the Indian Consti-tution to her assailant, Sohanlal Valmiki, andhis extended family. This is the difficult partsince it goes against the public mood thatappears to have revived its hostility to him because of media reports for the horrificcrime he committed 42 years ago. In the life ofa constitutional democracy, 42 years is a longtime. It is a time for evolution and a time for
maturity. It is a time for error and a time forredress. It is time enough for wisdom.
A new crimeAfter 42 years, a new crime against the
Constitution is in the making. Sohanlal Val-miki is being condemned to death by starva-tion. Our public institutions and a complicitsociety that care little for the last man (dontbelieve the Antyodaya stuff being talkedabout; hes a Valmiki), and that are actinglawlessly, are punishing him again.
The court has to step in suo motu andintervene reversing what the public sectorenterprise, NTPC Ltd., has done by dismis-sing Sohanlal Valmiki from his job as a dailywage labourer when his identity becameknown. He cycled 25 kilometres every day toearn Rs.261 a day by heaving coal. His two
sons, also daily wage labourers, are now un-able to find work because his identity isknown. Since they are his sons, they too mustbe punished like Cinna the poet in Shak-espeares Julius Caesar. The family, his wife,their sons, their wives and children as aresult of the media investigation now facethe agony of starvation and of intense live-lihood insecurity. There is no work availableto them.
If passive euthanasia was the gift of thefirst half of the courts judgment, on the tragicAruna Shanbaug case, preventing unjustpunishment must be the gift of the secondpart of the courts intervention. In a constitu-tional democracy, the court does not onlyhave to adjudicate, but also has the responsib-ility to educate the citizen-public about the
principles that underlie our constitutionalorder. And if that means going against thepublic mood, against a society and its in-stitutions whose actions are sometimes ty-rannical, then it must do so. Sohanlal Valmikihas been demonised. He committed a terriblecrime, was tried, and the full force of the lawwas brought to bear on him. He was punishedby the court. He has served his time in prison.Now, he faces double jeopardy. The Constitu-tion must protect him and his innocent familythrough the Supreme Court which is the cus-todian of its integrity. The Supreme Courtmust act suo motu or live with an incompletecase. If it does, it must take responsibility fordiminishing a stellar Aruna Shanbaug judg-ment by its inaction.
Here are the elements of the second half ofthe case, its afterlife so to speak. These have
been culled from the investigations done bythe newspapers. They need to be cross-checked. Sohanlal Valmiki was sentenced toserve a term of seven years at Yerwada jail forthe ghastly crime he committed on ArunaShanbaug. The details are known. The factswere presented before a court and he wasgiven the term. (We will not go into the con-flictual relationship between Aruna Shan-baug and Sohanlal Valmiki, as reported in thepapers, but shall detail his life only after thecourt sentence.) His daughter died when hewas in jail. His wife left him because she couldnot bear the burden of his crime and thepublic humiliation that followed. But shecame back. He thinks it was fated. He couldnot find work in Bombay and moved back tohis in-laws village, in western Uttar Pradesh.He is tormented by the crime he committedand, within the terms of his belief systems,was reported by his family to be in a terribleemotional state when the euthanasia case wasbeing heard. He is today very remorseful, veryreligious and has found a guru. He is tired ofthe guilt, the humiliation and the hardship,and longs for release to another life. He has atroubled relationship with his sons who haveto carry the burden of his crime. His wife hasasked the sons to forgive him but they cannotsince he has brought the curse of illiteracyand poverty upon them. His brothers are an-gry with him because he was the privilegedone to be taken to the metropolis of Bombay,the land of opportunity, since their fatherthought he was the bright one who wouldmake good for the whole family. He foundanonymity when he returned to his villageand rebuilt his life, content to be the lastman neglected by the state. With all its dis-advantages, he found protection in obscurityand had accepted his fate to live out a life in apermanently deprived state till nature hadrun its course. His grandchildren just lovehim.
As the lynch mobAnd then Aruna died. A new story had to be
told. The media was on the move. We do notknow what editorial and ethical guidelineswere given to the investigative reporters but,as a result, Sohanlal Valmiki was pluckedfrom his life of obscurity and placed beforethe glare lights of the national media. His lifewas dissected, his personal details revealed,and he was transported from the zone of qua-si-protection to the zone of complete insecu-rity.
The assailant has been found and this iswhat he does. Here is where he lives. Theseare the names of his family members. In acompetitive media atmosphere, he wasstripped naked before the lights. We mustreflect on what this means to a man at 66 or 72years of age, from the Valmiki community,who has been living on daily wages. Is he asimple or a cunning man? I dont know. Is henow a vulnerable man? Yes, he is. He wasdismissed from his job by NTPC even thoughhe had done nothing wrong at work. How canwe have the assailant of Aruna Shanbaug onour wage rolls, is what NTPC feels, I suppose.His sons have been unable to find work aswell.
The court has to decide how to educate asociety such that it stops acting as a lynchmob. It has to defend the Constitution in thesecond Sohanlal Valmiki case, as it did in thefirst Aruna Shanbaug judgment. It has to de-fend Sohanlal Valmikis rights and protect thelivelihood of his family. We are a constitu-tional democracy, not a lynching one. It maymean going against the tide. But the courtdoes not have to be popular. It has to be rightand just. It has to intervene. The right to lifethat was so exquisitely elaborated on in theAruna Shanbaug case will be enriched by itssuo motu intervention.
(Peter Ronald deSouza is professor at theCentre for the Study of Developing Societies.The views expressed are personal.)
The incomplete case of Aruna ShanbaugForty-two years after the crime against ArunaShanbaug, a new crime against the Constitution isin the making. Her assailant is being condemnedto death by starvation. Public institutions and a complicit society are punishing him again. The Supreme Court must step in suo motu
We are a constitutional democracy, not a lynching one. It maymean going against the tide. But the court does not have tobe popular. It has to be just. And defend the Constitution for
Sohanlal Valmiki as it did in the Aruna Shanbaug case.
Peter Ronald deSouza
The incomplete case of Aruna Shanbaug
