This petition is being circulated to all the PANEL ADVOCATES OF THE SCLSC as witnesses. In the event that the SCLSC unlawfully refuses to entertain or turns away the said application under Article 32 and the Applicant is no more, the law may take its own recourse.

Note: The Applicant shall be visiting Delhi on 27.01.2026. On the said date, she shall first proceed to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC), Chamber No. 107, for the purpose of filing the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution along with the associated affidavit.

To,

        The Secretary

         Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC)

        Supreme Court of India Complex

SEEKING WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO DIRECT AIIMS, NEW DELHI TO SET UP A MEDICAL BOARD FOR ADMINISTRATION OF LETHAL INJECTION TO THE APPLICANT AS A PART OF HER RIGHT TO DIE WITH DIGNITY UNDER ARTICLE 21

Subject: Application for filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking administration of active euthanasia (mercy killing), invoking Article 21 as encompassing the right to die with dignity, in view of the grave mental suffering directly attributable to the repeated denial of admission by the University of Delhi.

Respected Sir,

First Statement: The Hon'ble Supreme Court is constitutionally duty-bound to hear Article 32 petitions and it cannot refuse entertaining such Article 32 applications straight away. However, the Court has full right to dismiss the petitions if such petitions lack merit but only after providing a reasonable hearing to the petitioner.

If this Committee refuses to entertain the present application, the Secretary and the Committee members shall bear full responsibility for any consequences flowing from such refusal, including any untoward incident, as such inaction would amount to a failure of statutory and constitutional duty.
https://www.livelaw.in/columns/the-supreme-court-should-protect-the-heart-and-soul-of-the-constitution-of-india-166168

1. That the Applicant has been undergoing severe and continuous mental suffering and is constrained to live in a persistent state of suicidal ideation. She apprehends imminent danger to her life and, after enduring nearly two academic years, namely AY 2024–25 and AY 2025–26,  has finally approached this Hon’ble Court as a measure of last resort for consideration of end-of-life interventions under the supervision of a duly constituted Medical Board at AIIMS, New Delhi.
2. That the Applicant is a student with benchmark disabilities, belonging to an economically disadvantaged section of society, and has been brought up in a single-parent household, with her mother being her sole guardian. Owing to circumstances arising directly from her disability, the Applicant completed her senior secondary education through open schooling. Despite fulfilling the requisite academic eligibility criteria and demonstrating a consistent, bona fide intent to pursue higher education, the Applicant has been systematically denied admission by multiple educational institutions solely on account of her disability.
3. That in the year 2024, the Applicant applied for admission to Miranda House, a constituent college of the University of Delhi. Despite repeated written representations and formal requests for consideration, no decision whatsoever was taken by the Principal of the said college for a period exceeding three months. Left with no efficacious alternative remedy, the Applicant was constrained to approach the Hon’ble Court of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.
4. That in the year 2025, the Applicant once again applied for admission to the University of Delhi, including Lady Shri Ram College for Women and the Faculty of Law. Both applications were rejected. Consequently, on 2 October 2025, the Applicant filed a fresh complaint before the Court of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD). Shockingly, even the preliminary issue of admissibility of the said complaint has been kept pending indefinitely, without any reasoned order, communication, or prescribed timeline.
5. That despite intervention by the concerned Ministry and cognisance taken by the Hon’ble Union Cabinet Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, regarding the continued inaction and extreme hardship faced by the Applicant, the Court of the Chief Commissioner has failed to adjudicate even the threshold issue of admissibility, thereby compounding the Applicant’s suffering.
6. That the CCPD has repeatedly taken the side of the University of Delhi, thereby demonstrating a lack of impartiality in its conduct. The CCPD further refused to enforce the policy of the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD), Government of India, which unequivocally supports the case of the Petitioner. Despite stating in open court that an order would be issued shortly, the CCPD failed to notify or issue any such order even after the lapse of four months. Every year, the Respondent keeps changing its earlier stand; however, the CCPD has consistently refused to question or scrutinise the Respondent’s practice of disseminating information in a piecemeal and selective manner. At the initial stage, the issue is projected as one relating to the percentage of disability and merit; subsequently, it is sought to be converted into a matter of preference being accorded to certain disabilities over others. Similarly, for the academic year 2025–26, the Respondent initially alleged non-availability of the score card. Thereafter, the same issue was shifted to alleged late submission of the hostel form itself. The Respondent has thus been continuously shifting its stance in response to each subsequent rejoinder filed by the Petitioner, tailoring its defence post facto instead of maintaining a consistent and transparent position.

   No order has been issued or notified till date by the CCPD in any of my matters. The proceedings remain indeterminate and inconclusive, even after the hearing conducted on 26-09-2025 in the matter of admission.

   “Rule 38(8) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 mandates that the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner shall, as far as possible, decide the complaint within a period of three months from the date of receipt of notice by the opposite party.”

   That owing to the insurmountable passage of time, prolonged inaction on the part of the authorities, and the irreparable prejudice caused to the applicant, the very subject matter of the aforesaid admission-related disputes has lost its efficacy and practical relevance. The delay has defeated the purpose of the relief originally sought, rendering the proceedings infructuous and leaving the applicant without any meaningful or effective remedy. The applicant has been subjected to continuous mental agony, prolonged uncertainty, and institutional apathy, resulting in a complete erosion of her dignity and autonomy. In these circumstances, the applicant seeks the constitution of a medical board at AIIMS, New Delhi, under the supervision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering from irreversible mental suffering and seeks consideration of end-of-life interventions.

PRAYER 

In view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Committee may be pleased to: 

a) Grant permission and legal assistance to the Applicant for filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India seeking permission for the administration of active euthanasia (mercy killing), in exercise of the Applicant’s right to life with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, as the continued existence of the Applicant has been rendered unbearable due to grave, prolonged, and irreversible mental suffering; 

b) Hold that the Applicant has been left without any meaningful alternative remedy, rehabilitation, or prospect of dignified existence, despite repeated approaches to educational institutions, statutory authorities, and the concerned Ministry of the Government of India; 

c) Permit the Applicant to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to seek mercy killing as a last resort, in the absence of any other efficacious, humane, or timely relief; 

d) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Committee may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice, constitutional morality, and human dignity. And for this act of mercy and justice, the Applicant, as in duty bound, shall ever pray.

With kind regards,

Anushka Priyadarshini