Does the Right to Life include the Right to Die in the Fundamental Right Article 21:
In a Historical judgment In Common Cause Vs Union of India (U.I.O), The Supreme Court, CJI “{Chief Justice of India}” Deepak Mishra & a member of the five-judge bench of the apex court delivered an order allowing passive euthanasia (The act of deliberately ending a person’s life to relieve suffering) and held that the right to die with dignity is also included in a fundamental right.
P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994)
In P. Rathinam v. Union of India, the Supreme Court considered whether Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalized an attempt to commit suicide, was constitutional.
The Court held that every positive right guaranteed under the Constitution also includes its corresponding negative aspect. Therefore, it reasoned that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to die.
The Supreme Court further observed that there was a need to humanize the IPC. It stated that a person who attempts suicide is already suffering from severe mental and emotional distress. Punishing such a person would only aggravate their suffering instead of providing care and assistance. Consequently, the Court declared Section 309 IPC unconstitutional.
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)
In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice J. S. Verma, reconsidered the correctness of the decision in P. Rathinam.
The Court upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 306 and 309 of the IPC. It held that the right to life under Article 21 does not include the right to die. The Court explained that the right to life is an inherent natural right that exists by itself and is intended to protect life, not to terminate it.
The Court further observed that the broad interpretation given to the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 cannot automatically be extended to Article 21. Therefore, the right to life cannot be interpreted to include a right to end one’s life.
The Supreme Court also expressed concern that recognizing a constitutional right to die could have serious social consequences. It observed that such an interpretation might encourage suicides, create social instability, and adversely affect public welfare. In this context, Section 309 IPC was considered to serve a deterrent purpose against attempts to commit suicide.
Accordingly, the Court held that P. Rathinam was wrongly decided and ruled that neither Section 309 IPC (attempt to commit suicide) nor Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) is unconstitutional.
- P. Rathinam (1994): Section 309 IPC held unconstitutional; Article 21 interpreted to include the right to die.
- Gian Kaur (1996): Overruled P. Rathinam; held that Article 21 does not include the right to die; Sections 306 and 309 IPC upheld as constitutional
Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011)
Landmark judgment related to passive euthanasia or mercy killing.
In Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India considered the legality of euthanasia.
The Court held that active euthanasia is illegal in India, as it involves the deliberate act of causing the death of a person. However, the Court recognized the legality of passive euthanasia under exceptional circumstances and laid down guidelines governing its implementation until Parliament enacted a law on the subject.
The Court prescribed the following procedure for permitting passive euthanasia:
- An application for passive euthanasia may be made by the parents, spouse, or any other close relative of the patient. In the absence of close relatives, such an application may also be made by a next friend or by the doctors attending the patient.
- The application must be made before the High Court having jurisdiction.
- The Chief Justice of the High Court shall constitute a Bench of at least two Judges to examine the genuineness and bona fides of the request.
- The Bench shall appoint a committee of three competent and reputed medical experts to examine the patient and submit an independent medical opinion.
- The Court shall issue notice to the State and to the patient’s close relatives, if any, and consider all relevant evidence before making its decision.
- Passive euthanasia may be permitted only if the medical experts conclude that there is no reasonable possibility of the patient’s recovery and that continuation of life support would only prolong unnecessary suffering, and the High Court is satisfied that permitting withdrawal of life support is in the best interests of the patient.
These guidelines were later expanded and refined by the Supreme Court in Common Cause v. Union of India, which recognized the right to die with dignity and validated living wills (advance directives) under Article 21.
Active euthanasia: Illegal in India.
Passive euthanasia: Permitted under judicial supervision, subject to the guidelines laid down in Aruna Shanbaug (2011).
Conclusion
The Right to die with dignity is also included in the “fundamental right” of the Constitution of India.
A grown-up who has the intellectual ability to make an educated decision has the right to decline clinical treatment, including withdrawal from life-saving equipment. An Individual of competent intellectual capacity is entitled to execute progressed medical instructions as per the safeguards.
In the case of handicapped and disabled patients in the absence of advanced clinical directions, “The best interest principle” is to be applied and choices are to be taken by capable and competent skilled specialists.
FAQs: Right to Die under Article 21 in the Fundamental Right
Does the Right to Life under Article 21 include the Right to Die?
No. In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court held that Article 21 does not include the right to die. However, in Common Cause v. Union of India, the Court clarified that the right to die with dignity is a part of the Right to Life under Article 21.
What was held in P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994)?
In P. Rathinam v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that:
Section 309 IPC (attempt to commit suicide) was unconstitutional.
The Right to Life under Article 21 included the Right to Die.
A person attempting suicide should receive compassion rather than punishment.
This judgment was later overruled by Gian Kaur (1996).
What was the significance of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)?
In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court held that:
Article 21 does not include the Right to Die.
Sections 306 and 309 IPC are constitutionally valid.
The decision in P. Rathinam was wrongly decided.
What is the difference between active and passive euthanasia?
Active Euthanasia
Death is caused by a deliberate act, such as administering a lethal injection.
Illegal in India.
Passive Euthanasia
Death results from withdrawing or withholding life-support treatment.
Legal under conditions laid down by the Supreme Court.
What did the Supreme Court decide in Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011)?
In Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that:
Active euthanasia is illegal.
Passive euthanasia is permissible under strict judicial supervision.
The Court laid down guidelines for permitting passive euthanasia until Parliament enacted a law.
