In an interview to the Indian Express on May 19, Justices Markanday Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra recount how they had to walk a tightrope between law and morality while deciding Aruna Shanbaug’s case.
Law speaks the language of rights, in clear, concise and precise terms, while morality (which itself belies any singular definition) has inherent subjectivity built into it. There is also the factor of sharp polarisation, which gets aggravated when the debate involves matters of life and death.
Mercifully, matters of faith and religion didn’t come in and muddy the waters in Aruna’s case. Not that there wasn’t a possibility that it would, for all over the world, litigation over the right to die has always witnessed bitter fights over the meaning and interpretation of religious doctrines, tenets, beliefs and sentiments. Politicians are only too happy to jump on to the bandwagon and try turning the debate into a speeding campaign vehicle.