Gujarat High Court
Allarakha Ismailbhai Thimmar vs Union Of India on 21 July, 2022
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/13450/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13450 of 2022
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13451 of 2022
================================================================
ALLARAKHA ISMAILBHAI THIMMAR
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
================================================================
Appearance:
MR DHARMESH C GURJAR(5170) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
REKHABEN C GURJAR(7360) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3,4
MR SAHIL B. TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 21/07/2022
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for a direction directing the respondent authorities to allow them to commit euthanasia. Hence, the writ petitions are being decided vide common oral order.
2. So far as the facts leading to filing of Special Civil Application No.13450 of 2022 is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner is that he is the leader of Gosabara Muslim Machhimar Samaj and is representing all the fishermen, who belong from Gosabara Muslim Machhimar Samaj, and his community is dealing with the Business of Fisheries at Gosabara, District Porbandar since more than 100 years. There are almost 100 families, in which, there are total approximately 600 peoples in the community and all the fishermen of Gosabara Muslim Machhimar Samaj have acquired required licence from the Department of Fisheries, Government of Gujarat. It is the case of the petitioner that since, 2016, various concerned authorities are continuously disturbing and harassing the petitioner and his community members by prohibiting to park their boats at Gosabara, Page 1 of 8 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 21:36:37 IST 2022 C/SCA/13450/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2022 District Probandar. It is stated that the State Authority with mala fide intention, do not provide the parking licence to the petitioner's community and his community members are harassed. It is stated in the writ petitions that on being facing such harassment, the petitioner along with his community members have given a written application for collectively euthanasia (samuhik Ichha Mrtyu) for 600 peoples of Gosabara Muslim Machhimar Samaj, excluding the children before His Excellency - the Governor, State of Gujarat, Hon'ble Chief Minister, Fisheries Minister, Home Minister of the State of Gujarat as well as to the District Collector, Probandar and other authorities on 31.03.2022. It is stated that till date, no response from any authority is received to the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed seeking euthanasia for 600 people.
3. So far as the facts with regard to Special Civil Application No.13451 of 2022 are concerned, it is the case of the petitioner is the forefather of the petitioner viz. Namdev Nathu Mahajan was a freedom fighter at the time of British India. The father of the petitioner was participated in various movements of freedom for the country with Mahatma Gandhi. The petitioner has joined the service at Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation ("GSRTC" for short), as Driver on 29.04.2022. He was doing his job with sincerely and honestly with the GSRTC. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner got some information and important documents regarding the corruption going on in the GSRTC, and it has continued with the help of higher level officers of the department and he has tried to convey such corruption being going on before the concerned officers at the relevant time, but instead of taking strong action of stopping the corruption in Page 2 of 8 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 21:36:37 IST 2022 C/SCA/13450/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2022 the GSRTC Department, some concerned officers of the department have started harassing the petitioner with the help of other employees and finally, the petitioner was dismissed from service alleging baseless and bogus charges and allegations. It is stated that the petitioner also did Andolan at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi on 07.05.2012 to the end of 2015. The petitioner has also made various representations to His Excellency the President of India, the Governor of Gujarat, and the Union Minister at the relevant point of time. Finally, the petitioner decided to choose active euthanasia to end his life due to some many harassment and troubles.
4. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Gurjar, appearing for the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.13450 of 2022, has submitted that he belongs to a particular community i.e. Gosabara Muslim Machhimar Samaj, and he is targeted only because of their community. They are not allowed to keep their boats on a particular place. It is submitted that the petitioner, who represents Gosabara Muslim Machhimar Samaj, had given a written application before the respondent authority with regard to their problems, which they are facing, however, they are, on the contrary, being harassed by the government officials. Hence, an application was given by them to His Excellency - the Governor, State of Gujarat on 31.03.2022 for allowing them to commit euthanasia collectively for 600 lives excluding the children. So far the petitioner of Special Civil Application No13451 of 2022 is concerned, the petitioner of this writ petition has been fighting against the corruption, however no action has been taken, hence both the petitioners have chosen active euthanasia. It is submitted that there is no alternative left to the petitioners but Page 3 of 8 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 21:36:37 IST 2022 C/SCA/13450/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2022 ask for such reliefs from this Hon'ble Court.
5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Trivedi, has submitted that the writ petitions are ill- conceived and misdirected and such prayers cannot be sought in the writ petitions, that too before the High Court. It is submitted by him that the Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause (A Regd. Society) Vs. Union of India and another, [(2018) 5 SCC 1], has enunciated that only in serious cases, where the person is in a persistent vegetative state and suffering from various ailments and rarest of rare case, he can ask for euthanasia. It is further submitted that in fact, the advocate, who has filed these writ petitions, is responsible for such cause of the petitioners and he should have advised the petitioners who are not suffering from any ailment and are not in a persistent vegetative state to exercise their rights before some other forum instead of filing the present writ petitions for seeking euthanasia for 600 lives. It is submitted that the concerned advocate should respect the legal profession and it is his duty to see that such petitions are not filed before this Court, which consumes lot of time. It is submitted that these writ petitions may not be entertained and the same may be rejected by imposing appropriate cost.
6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. I have also perused the relevant documents which are available on record.
7. The writ petitions are filed, "under the provisions of Birth and Death Registration Act, 1929 and under Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 and Death Rules, 2004". This Court fails to understand, how the provisions of the aforesaid Act and Page 4 of 8 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 21:36:37 IST 2022 C/SCA/13450/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2022 the Rules will apply in case of the petitioners, who want to commit euthanasia. The Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause (supra), after examining the entire history of euthanasia has held that passive euthanasia is only permissible in case of a person suffering from life threatening disease and is in a Permanent Vegetative State (PVS) or is terminally ill and/ or his brain dead / clinically dead. It is not the case of the petitioners that they or their 600 community members are suffering from any of the said aliments. Only because of their grievance is not resolved by the State authorities, they have requested His Excellency - the Governor of the State of Gujarat to permit them to have euthanasia of 600 persons.
8. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of R.D. Saxena Vs. Balram Prasad Sharma, [2001(3) G.L.H. 624], wherein the Supreme Court has specifically observed thus :-
"42. In our country, admittedly, a social duty is cast upon the legal profession to show the people beckon light by their conduct and actions. The poor, uneducated and exploited mass of the people need a helping hand from the legal profession, admittedly, acknowledged as a most respectable profession. No effort should be made or allowed to be made by which a litigant could be deprived of his rights, statutory as well as constitutional, by an advocate only on account of the exalted position conferred upon him under the judicial system prevalent in the country."
9. It would also be apposite to refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of O.P. Sharma Vs. High Court of the Punjab and Haryana, [2011 (6) SCC 86], wherein the Supreme Court has observed thus:-
Page 5 of 8 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 21:36:37 IST 2022C/SCA/13450/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2022 "31) An advocate's duty is as important as that of a Judge. Advocates have a large responsibility towards the society. A client's relationship with his/her advocate is underlined by utmost trust. An advocate is expected to act with utmost sincerity and respect. In all professional functions, an advocate should be diligent and his conduct should also be diligent and should conform to the requirements of the law by which an advocate plays a vital role in the preservation of society and justice system. An advocate is under an obligation to uphold the rule of law and ensure that the public justice system is enabled to function at its full potential. Any violation of the principles of professional ethics by an advocate is unfortunate and unacceptable. Ignoring even a minor violation/misconduct militates against the fundamental foundation of the public justice system. An advocate should be dignified in his dealings to the Court, to his fellow lawyers and to the litigants. He should have integrity in abundance and should never do anything that erodes his credibility. An advocate has a duty to enlighten and encourage the juniors in the profession. An ideal advocate should believe that the legal profession has an element of service also and associates with legal service activities. Most importantly, he should faithfully abide by the standards of professional conduct and etiquette prescribed by the Bar Council of India in Chapter II, Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules."
10. On a conjoint reading of the aforesaid observations made by the Supreme Court with regard to the ethics of advocate and legal profession reveal that a social duty is cast upon the legal profession to show the people beckon light by their conduct and actions. The poor, uneducated and exploited mass of the people need a helping hand from the legal profession, admittedly, acknowledged as a most respectable profession. It is asserted that no effort should be made or allowed to be made, by which, a litigant could be deprived of his rights, statutory as well as constitutional, by an advocate only on account of the exalted position conferred upon him under the judicial system prevalent in the country. It is further asserted by the highest Court of the land that an advocate's duty is as important as that of a Judge. The advocates have a large responsibilities towards the society. A client's relationship with his/her advocate is underlined by utmost trust and is expected to act with utmost sincerity and respect. It is further observed that an advocate is under an obligation to uphold the rule of Page 6 of 8 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 21:36:37 IST 2022 C/SCA/13450/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2022 law and ensure that the public justice system is enabled to function at its full potential. In the present case, by filing the writ petitions on behalf of the petitioners, seeking euthanasia, learned advocate Mr.Gurjar, has acted against the observations made by the Apex Court. It was expected from him to guide the petitioners to avail remedies under the law instead of filing the writ petitions seeking euthanasia. He is not aware about the basic concepts of euthanasia, under which circumstances, the same is permissible. The petitioners have reposed faith in him and it was his solemn duty to respect the trust reposed in him by the petitioners and he should have in fact initiated appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum for redressing their grievances instead of filing the writ petitions for euthanasia. In fact, advocate Mr.Gurjar, by filing these petitions has shown a false ray of hope to the petitioners that this Court may permit euthanasia and all their grievances will stand resolved. Thus, this Court is of pains to see the writ petitions preferred with such prayers where the provisions of law, under which a writ is sought is absolutely having no relation with the issue. Such writ petitions break all the boundaries of frivolity and, hence are required to be rejected outrightly.
11. Because of filing of such writ petitions, which are absolute frivolous in nature, the precious time of the Registry and staff of this Court as well as the learned AGP is totally wasted. The Court could have utilized this time for effective hearing of other matters, but for the assertion of learned advocate Mr.Gurjar and filing of this writ petitions the Court has been deprived of its precious time. The writ petitions are rejected with a costs of Rs.5,000/-, to be paid by learned Page 7 of 8 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 21:36:37 IST 2022 C/SCA/13450/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2022 advocate Mr.Gurjar. To be deposited before the Registry of this Court in each petition.
12. At this stage, learned advocate Mr.Gurjar, has submitted that costs may not be imposed on him since in fact, he has not charged any single penny and on the assertion of the petitioners these writ petitions are filed. Such a lame excuse cannot absolve him in maintaining his absolute integrity and faith towards a noble profession. He should have outrightly refused filing of such writ petitions and should have asserted that such type of writ petitions cannot be filed before the High Court and appropriate remedy for redressing their grievances lies elsewhere by filing appropriate proceedings. He should have in fact apprised the writ petitioners with regard to "euthanasia" under which circumstances, the same can be sought for.
13. Learned advocate Mr.Gurjar has submitted that he has served as Assistant Government Pleader before this High Court for two years. This Court is shocked that despite rendering service as AGP for two years, he is still filing the writ petitions with frivolous prayers. He has shown complete insensitivity towards the petitioners' hence, request for not imposing the personal cost on him, is rejected.
14. In view of the foregoing reasons and observations, both these writ petitions stand rejected.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) MAHESH BHATI/15-16 Page 8 of 8 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 21:36:37 IST 2022