Friend vs Friend: The Law Struggles to Offer 'Relief' in a Rare Euthanasia Case

Meanwhile, a former High Court judge elaborated on why the man, according to him, might not be permitted to make the travel. "Attempting to visit Zurich under a subterfuge for treatment in Belgium, when the real intent is to go for euthanasia in a non-terminal case is forbidden under Indian law even after the 2018 Common Cause Constitutional bench judgement which lays down strict conditions for passive euthanasia," he said. He further pointed out that Section 6 of The Passport Act 1967 speaks of the power of Central government to refuse permission to travel in the public interest, "which may be further narrowly construed to Article 19 limits of public order, decency or morality." In Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India, the Supreme Court had said: ".if at any time in the future the petitioner wants to go abroad.the question would definitely arise whether the refusal to release or in other words, continuance of the impounding of the passport is in the interests of public order, decency or morality in the first case, and in the interests of the general public in the second, and the restriction thus imposed is reasonable so, as to come within the protection of Article 19 or Article 19."