NEW DELHI:: The Supreme Court on Wednesday admitted a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the `right to die' with dignity of persons suffering from chronic terminal diseases and likely to go into a permanent vegetative state.

A Bench of Justice B.N. Agrawal and Justice P.P. Naolekar admitted the PIL filed by the NGO Common Cause which said that when a medical expert opined that the person afflicted with the terminal disease had reached a point of no return, then he/she should be given the right to refuse being put on a life support system to prolong his/her agonies.

When the matter was taken up on Wednesday, Additional Solicitor-General Gopal Subramaniam informed the court that the Centre had already filed its response opposing the petition. He said the 16th Law Commission was against any such proposal as such a law was liable to be misused in this country. He said he would place before the court the Commission's report and also file an additional affidavit.

The petitioner said "those at the end of their natural life span and likely to go into a state of terminal illness or permanent vegetative state, are deprived of their right to refuse cruel and unwanted medical treatment, like feeding through hydration tubes, being kept on ventilator and other life-supporting machines in order to artificially prolong their natural life span." It said that a person whose life was ebbing out should be allowed to die, as the continuance of the life with the support system was an unnatural extension of the natural life span.

The petitioner prayed for a declaration that the `right to die with dignity' was a fundamental right under Article 21.

The Centre, in its response, said that the progression of medical science to relieve pain, suffering, rehabilitation and treatment of the so-called incurable diseases would suffer a setback if mercy killing is allowed. It said that continuous advancement in medical science had made possible good pain management in patients of cancer and other terminal illnesses.

Similarly, rehabilitation helped many spinal injury patients to lead near normal life and euthanasia might not be required. The Government was not in favour of accepting the petitioner's plea, it said and sought dismissal of the petition.