Suo Motu – Case of euthanasia and mortal dilemma:

Eight calls in ten minutes. The judge must have hit the roof by this time.  I know the ‘gnash’ verbale that will flow with the ninth call. I beat him by returning the call, maybe by milliseconds.

The judge started banging the gavel, literally, accusing me of disrespect to the judiciary and insulting ‘his honour’. I patiently waited out the torrent and then calmly asked, " By which code, while taking a bath and letting the incoming calls going unanswered, would he like to charge me?" The learned judge did not respond.

 Cooling down, he said in a conciliatory tone, " I am feeling doubly refreshed and raring to go. I wanted to know, how refreshed my one and only ace pro bono advocate is, after the vacation?"

I cursed myself for not switching over to another service provider. Frustrated, I reminded him, that both of us had decided to end our suo motu parleys. It is my experience, when it comes to resolutions, the learned judge always forgets. Bowing to judicial deference, I kept my anger under a tight lid.

 All the while, the judge was busy doodling complicated loops, on a legal pad, wasting paper and ink, in equal measures. If the judge wanted to feel, his transformation from whittling away wood to doodling on paper as a sign "of doubly refreshed", then for comparison, I wanted to tell him that I had just arrived from a lunar mission!

 Finishing his art work, the judge looked at me, with a twinkle in his eyes, and said, " You know, the best two things that came to my mind are this PLI, fit for a suo motu and pro bono handling." 

 I got confused how a PLI filed by another individual could be treated as a suo motu case. My mind immediately clarified it - the judge himself has filed the PLI and laying the foundation to make it a suo motu case and then rope me in to do a pro bono! All of a sudden, I felt the bone-drilling-cold of the Arctic, dressed in casual wear.

 Me, shivering in frozen land, did not deter him from starting another doodle.  Completing a complicated and confusing loop, he slid an oversized case file, with few papers trying to occupy, as much space as possible. The judge growled on, " Sharp at 10 AM, the proceedings will start."

Protest is a lost cause anyways. I trudged home and started going through the assembled papers. What the judge did not reveal and what I had guessed about the identity of the PLI litigant, his handwriting confirmed it. To further confuse the issue, he had clubbed two dissimilar matters, without answering the why so!  The connection between euthanasia and Relativity, really stumped me on two counts. How it affected the judge and in turn why it landed on my head. Not to one to burn midnight LEDs, I announced   a goodnight to the file and promptly went to bed, at my usual time. Not even the trigger happy, suo motu judge could disrupt that schedule.

The case title "Euthanasia and mortal dilemma.”, fit for a thesis paper, looked out of place in a legal docket. The other title, "Relativity - a hit and some misses, through the frames of relative reasoning." was even more impressive but a bit ‘out-spaceish’. Though, I quickly brushed up my general knowledge, I could neither grapple with the mortal dilemma or grasp Einstein's thinking or the import of this, on to this so called PLI cum suo motu cum pro bono case!

The judge, on his honourable bench, wore a dark look, rivalling the colour of his ill-fitting robe. He must have been continuing to doodle on the legal pad, from where he had left it yesterday. The wall clock, missing the second hand, patiently kept the time ticking over, on its dusty face, to show the time as 10 A M.

Having waited a few beats, I noisily cleared my throat, to announce my presence. The judge, coming back from doodle land, mistook that sound as a pre-trial motion and shouted, “motion denied." With or without banging the gavel, it was enough of a racket, to startle me.

Realising his mistake, he spoke,” Are you filing any pre-trial motions?”

I very much wanted to remind him of his earlier ruling - say whatever you have to, right here and now. I also wanted to point out, ‘instead of engaging in whittling of the wood, try written down your rulings’. But I chose to stare at him.

 Judge, I have a doubt, what is your beef?

Counsellor, you know, I am a pure vegetarian and don’t even allow a busy hen to lay eggs in my garden. Did you mean to ask what is my brief?

I half-nodded and half-shook my head, hoping his busy doodling activity will give it a pause. Judge, I understand your concern on Euthanasia and mortal dilemma. May I ask why this PLI, on Relativity - a hit and some misses, through the frames of relative reasoning, which would not be interesting, even to Mr Einstein? 

Counsellor, I am interested. To my knowledge, only his brain has been extensively studied, a lot more seriously than his research papers? On second thoughts, I am converting it as a separate suo motu case, to do justice to those efforts!

Justice for whom? For Einstein or the neurologists and pathologists! Why has he chosen to compound issues!  I wanted to ask, if he is upgrading the Euthanasia and mortal dilemma, too. But I kept quiet, knowing a PLI or a suo motu case, his judgement will neither browbeat nor have a binding on any one.

Finally, gathering his robes around, the judge growled, "If ready, now proceed."

Certain that the judge would not put up with any more wise cracks, I started to argue the case titled:

Euthanasia and mortal dilemma.

“Your Honour, the dictionary meaning apart, this case involves life or abdication of life and moral compass inside human consciousness. The word ‘mortal’ has been cleverly used to indicate the dilemma of the living as moral and that of the euthanasia-seeker as mortal.”

The utter bewilderment, on the judge’s face telegraphed me, that he had just seen a ghost walking all over his legal pad. Having known his weak assimilating prowess, I should have avoided the mentions of dictionary, clever wording, moral or mortal dilemmas, and stuck to one fact per sentence.

To mask his befuddlement, the judge said, “My simple questions are – Why? When? Who? and any other relevant factors in support thereof. Don’t go all over the universe. I don’t like unnecessary travel!”

Judge, “In a nutshell, this requires an amendment to the constitution, a change in mindset and rules for Human Rights Commission and code of medical conduct.”

Flustered, the judge growled, “Is the constitution a musical instrument to tune as you please? Why drag the Human Rights Commission in this matter? Believe me, you have gone completely overboard to tinker with the code of medical conduct and thereby the sacred Hippocrates oath? I have half a mind to debar you.”

Absolutely he had no recollection of his own, previous outbursts, he spat at me. He had accepted of having a tenuous or no legal standing, even in this court or the bar. Instead of reminding him of his stated weak legal standing, I referred to the ‘whys’ in his simple questions.

“The section, in the constitution, that guarantees individual freedom should be amended, to include the right to euthanasia, by self or by family, under diseases causing extreme distress, and bringing active and passive Euthanasia, on par.

Human Rights Commission should become proactive and change the parameters. What else would be the hardest human suffering and a tragedy? Will it not be denial of human rights, if needed relief to persons pleading for Euthanasia?”

The judge interrupted and questioned, “Why you want to tinker with the code of medical conduct? Will it not upset the spirit of Hippocrates?”

Judge, I am coming there, in a second. “The medical profession, having attempted and raised the collective hands, failing to give relief or cure, should it be placed in a position to decide on the applicability of euthanasia? This will change, if the code is changed. Even the spirit of Hippocrates would not oppose but approve this spirited defense of euthanasia!”

Having received a heavy verbal dosage, the judged banged the gavel and announced recess till next day. Not giving a chance for him to change his ruling and throw the gavel at me, I did a Usain Bolt and ran out of the premises.

 Next day, sharp, at 10 A M, the judge himself called out the court to session. A lilt, which is normally noticed in walking, came along with his words. He appeared unusually calm, collected and raring to go. As the judge had not yet nodded at me, I kept on shuffling things on my table and staring at him, without appearing to do so.

Counsellor, “I read your entire brief, in toto. I researched the rules of the Rights Commission.  Points under denial of services and or discrimination may deserve a closer look, though in my opinion it would be too much of a stretch, to string it along.

On the Code of Conduct, the medical profession is impelled to serve with nonmaleficence and respect patient’s autonomy. Here again, you want to extrapolate it, to cover the terminally ill, without breakthrough in curatives, and those without life support who would cease to exist, and tag it with financial and care-giving burdens. To top it all, you want to give the final say to the seeker of euthanasia. Though it sounds like an ex parte judgement, this point has merit. The paradox is, the issues are inter-twined and shrouded in dilemma of both moral and mortal variety.

I have reached the following conclusion. This court cannot seek for an amendment, in the constitution. The best I can do is, to pass on the proceedings, to The Highest Court and The Law Ministry of the Nation. Surely, I will buttress the suggestions, based on your brief. Whatever the Parliament decides, the Honourable Courts will implement.”

Counsellor, this is off the record. “What devil has taken over your sanity? You accuse inaction, unsympathetic and inhuman attitude on all the venerable institutions. Adding aviation fuel to volcanic inferno, you go across borders, shaking fists and demanding N G O’s, and revered UN bodies be sanctioned, if they do not form a queue and address this euthanasia crisis. I give you a lot of latitude but are you trying to overrun on the longitudes too. Officially, I would reprimand you with a jail term but personally, I will leave it to you.”

I started to wonder why the honourable judge is giving a lecture on geographical features and what is its relevance, even in an off the record observation?  

The judge, eyes narrowing with indecision, thought whether to admonish me or announce a recess at this stage, where he is becoming uncomfortable or to continue. I was all eager to know, if the decision taken is to continue, which it would be – Einstein’s case or his doodling?

Finally, he said, “In view of the urgency to draft the final judgement, on Euthanasia and mortal dilemma, I adjourn the proceedings in the matter of Relativity - a hit and some misses, through the frames of relative reasoning to a future date. Counsel is directed to argue the case then, whenever it is. The court is adjourned”

The judge left without banging the gavel. I followed suit, awaiting another series of cell phone summons, silently pleading that it should not be when I am bathing.