• Euthanasia is the process by which a person intentionally chooses to end their life, often to escape an incurable illness or unbearable pain and suffering. This practice, which must be carried out by a licensed physician, can be classified as either ‘active’ or ‘passive.’

• Active euthanasia involves taking direct actions to terminate a person's life, such as administering a lethal injection or using other external methods. In contrast, passive euthanasia entails the removal of life-sustaining treatments or support necessary to keep a terminally ill individual alive.

• In 2011, the Supreme Court recognized passive euthanasia in the case of Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse who had been in a persistent vegetative state since being assaulted in Mumbai in 1973. The court distinguished between ‘active’ and ‘passive’ euthanasia, permitting the latter in “specific situations” (Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs Union Of India & Ors). This marked the first legal acceptance of passive euthanasia in India.

• In 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of ‘passive euthanasia’ for patients with terminal illnesses, asserting that the ‘right to die with dignity’ is part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court also established comprehensive guidelines for passive euthanasia, applicable to both situations where a patient has left an ‘advance directive’ or ‘living will’ and cases without such documentation. For a long time, India lacked specific legislation regarding the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling and the subsequent draft guidelines from the Ministry clarify that these actions are legal within a defined framework.

• Withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment involves ceasing medical interventions, such as ventilators and feeding tubes, when they no longer contribute positively to a patient's condition or merely prolong suffering. This also encompasses ‘do-not-attempt-resuscitation’ (DNAR) orders.

• Life-sustaining treatments are medical procedures that artificially perform vital bodily functions necessary for a person's survival. These interventions may be withheld or withdrawn to prioritize comfort care, allowing the illness to progress naturally while providing relief from symptoms.

• The guidelines outline a process for state governments and hospitals to implement essential mechanisms mandated by the Supreme Court’s ruling. These mechanisms include:

  • Establishing Primary and Secondary Medical Boards within hospitals to assess when further medical intervention may be ineffective for a terminally ill patient.
  • Designating doctors by the district Chief Medical Officer or an equivalent authority to serve on hospital-level Secondary Medical Boards, which will review and either confirm or reject the recommendations of the Primary Medical Boards

Genesis of RTI

• The origins of the Right to Information (RTI) Act can be traced back to a grassroots movement in rural Rajasthan. In the 1980s, civil society organizations and residents of Devdungri, a small village in the Rajsamand district, fought for issues such as fair wages, accountability from government officials, and access to local employment records, including muster rolls, to ensure equitable compensation.
• This struggle evolved into a broader movement advocating for a law that would guarantee citizens' right to information. A key component of this early movement was the innovative use of Jan Sunwais, or public hearings, where community members came together to review and discuss government records. Public hearings significantly contributed to the demand for RTI, with crucial support from prominent activists like Aruna Roy, Nikhil Dey, Shekhar Singh, and Anshi, later joined by Harsh Mander, who also became an advocate for this cause.

The Making of RTI

• The initial draft provisions for the RTI were developed in 1993 by the Consumer Education and Research Council (CERC). This was followed by a draft from the Press Council, which included several key features that would eventually be incorporated into the RTI Act.
• In 1997, the Government of India established a Working Group led by consumer activist H.D. Shourie to create a Freedom of Information Bill. The bill underwent significant revisions, resulting in the Freedom of Information Act of 2002, which was enacted during the NDA government.
• When the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) took office, it formed the National Advisory Council (NAC) to supervise the Common Minimum Programme, which emphasized the right to information. The NAC collaborated with civil society organizations to revise the 2002 legislation, ultimately leading to a more robust RTI framework.
• The final draft of the RTI Act was approved and enacted with 150 amendments, replacing the Freedom of Information Act with a more comprehensive law in 2005. Officially coming into effect on October 12, 2005, the RTI Act is applicable to all levels of government, including central, state, and local authorities.

Challenges

• One of the primary obstacles to the effective implementation of the RTI Act is the Official Secrets Act (OSA) of 1923. Instituted during British rule, the OSA aims to maintain the confidentiality of official information and makes it illegal to disclose classified information.
• The OSA mirrors the British Official Secrets Act of 1911, which has undergone significant reforms, whereas India’s version has largely remained unchanged, with only minor amendments in 1967. This raises concerns about the OSA’s extensive scope hindering the RTI Act's objective of enhancing government transparency and accountability.
• For instance, Section 8(2) of the RTI Act allows information to be disclosed if the public interest in releasing it outweighs potential harm to protected interests. Additionally, Section 22 of the RTI Act asserts that it takes precedence in cases of inconsistencies, reinforcing the Act’s commitment to promoting transparency and accountability in government operations.
• Nevertheless, Section 5 of the OSA still presents challenges to effectively implementing the RTI Act. The broad language of the OSA enables bureaucratic control over information, allowing officials to withhold disclosure under the pretext of confidentiality. Other laws, such as Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act (1872) and Section 9 of the All India Services Conduct Rules (1968), also grant powers that can limit transparency.
• Thus, while the RTI Act represents a significant advancement toward democratic empowerment, older secrecy laws like the OSA continue to reinforce bureaucratic control, complicating the transition to a culture of openness in government.

RTI Amendments

• In 2006, there were attempts to amend the RTI Act by removing “file notings” (internal notes by government officials on files), but these efforts were thwarted by public protests. However, the 2019 amendments specifically changed the terms, tenure, and remuneration of the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners (ICs).
• Under the original Act, the CIC and ICs were placed on par with equivalent ranks in the Election Commission of India, an independent constitutional authority where commissioners have a fixed tenure of five years and can only be removed under specific conditions.
• The 2019 Amendment removed this parity with the Election Commission and granted the government control over the tenure, remuneration, and appointment terms of the CIC and ICs, which some perceive as diminishing their independence.
• Additionally, the amendment suggested by the data protection law has raised concerns about potentially weakening the RTI Act further