________________________________________________________ Indian Penal Code Project, Semester v

_______________________________________________________ Decriminalization of voluntary death : Sec 309 of the IPC and the Indian scenario ________________________________________________________

Subhro Sengupta Sec b, Roll No. 149 Submitted on - ____________ ________________________________________________________________

Hidayatullah National Law University Raipur, Chhattisgarh

Acknowledgement

First of all I would like to thank my IPC teacher Mr. Vijay Kr. Singh who has extended all the support that I needed in preparing this research project. I would also like to thank the library staff for the exhaustive resources provided by the library and its leniency in renting out the books. Last but not the least I would like to thank my all my near ones for whatever small or large input each of them might have given me because adding all of them up has made this possible.

Subhro Sengupta Semester V, Roll - 149

Table of Contents

Page no. Introduction.....................................................................................................05 Validity of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code...............................06 March of Law.............................................................................................07 Validity of Section 309 I. As per Article 21 of the Constitution........................................09 II. As Per Article 14 of the Constitution........................................09 Analysis of the Decision in Smt. Gian Kaurs case.....................................10 Desirability of anti-suicide law....................................................................11 Views on the issue.............................................................................................12 Analysis of Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India..........................................14 Conclusion........................................................................................................16 References.........................................................................................................18

Introduction

I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul -William Ernest Henley[1] The aim of this project is to present a comprehensive analysis of the anti suicide law in India, its validity and also its desirability in the present day scenario. Let us first deliberate upon the fact as to what exactly is Suicide. Now, Merriam- Webster[2] defines suicide as the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally especially by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind. A plain reading of the meaning of the word makes us feel as if its a psychiatric problem and not a manifestation of criminal instinct. To begin with some interesting historical facts, Indian mythology says that Lord Rama and his brothers took Jalsamadhi in river Sarayu near Ayodhya. Ancient History of our nation says that Lord Buddha and Lord Mahavira achieved death by seeking it[3]. We are proud of the fact that our Father of the Nation went for various fast unto death for our independence movement[4] which ironically has been classified as a criminal act by the courts[5]. Coming to the law regulating suicides in India, we have Section 309 (hereinafter referred to as the said provision) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)[6] which makes attempt to suicide a punishable offence, the punishment being imprisonment up to one year or fine or both[7]. This section is based on the principle that State, being the protector of life of the people, is under an obligation to prevent people from taking their own lives as it prevents them from taking other peoples lives[8]. There has been a lot of debate in the recent times regarding the humanitarian aspect of this law and the courts, on numerous occasions in the past, have commented on the constitutionality and desirability of this provision. Expectedly, the judicial opinion on this has been extremely varied, speckled and even contradicting. The courts at one point have declared the said provision void[9], others at some point have held it to be constitutionally valid and even indispensable[10], and yet another opinion is that the said provision is constitutionally valid but is not desirable nor is serving any purpose[11]. The most recent opinion on the said section is the 210th Law Commission of India Report[12] which has recommended an omission of Section 309 of IPC[13]. In the light of the confusion regarding this legal provision, the author aims to study the varied judicial opinions and in furtherance of the same, suggest changes to the law.

Validity of Section 309

The present stance of law as regards the constitutional validity of the said provision has been enunciated by a Constitution Bench judgement in the case of Smt. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab[14]. This Constitution bench has upheld the validity of the said provision and has held that it is a necessary and desirable provision. Even though this has been the final stance by the Honorable Supreme Court on the said provision but then it needs to remembered that the stance has been changing with time and the debate on the validity of the same has not cooled down yet.

March of Law
The said provision, whenever, deliberated upon by the Supreme Court has included the

The said provision, whenever, deliberated upon by the Supreme Court has included the infringement of Fundamental Rights through the same. Article 21[15] of the Constitution of India deals with Right to Life and Liberty and it has been clearly held in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[16] that procedure established by law must be just, fair and reasonable if it has to conform to Article 21[17].

Now, the main issue that has been dealt by the Supreme Court again and again is that whether or not right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes in it a right not to live a forced life and consequentially, a right to die. As is flowing from the point that if right to die is included under Article 21 then attempt to suicide would get the sanction as a fundamental right. It has been held by various judgments of the Supreme Court[18] and also Article 13, that any law which is taking away a fundamental right is void. Therefore, Section 309 would also be declared unconstitutional and void if Right to Die was read into Article 21. In 1987, in the case of Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra[19], the Bombay High Court struck down Section 309 IPC as ultra vires of Article 21 and said that right to life includes in itself a right not to live. Section 309 IPC was also struck down on the ground that it is violative of Article 14[20] as it is discriminatory as it does not take into account circumstances of the case, and is arbitrary as it does not clearly lay down what constitutes attempt and is thus, very vague. The Court also held that since two persons may attempt to commit suicide for very different reasons, they should not be put on an equal footing[21] and there has to be some sort of intelligible differentia in the punishment provision. The Court further held that since the said provision does not categorically lay down what constitutes an attempt to commit suicide, it is very vague and hence, arbitrary as each judge may interpret any action of a person as an attempt to commit suicide as he thinks fit. Thus, there is too much subjectivity involved and hence, the law is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. In this way, Section 309 of IPC was struck down for the first time. However, in 1988, a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 309 IPC in the case of Chenna Jagadeeswar v. State of Andhra Pradesh[22]. It was held that right to life under Art 21 cannot be construed to include right to die. As a result, Sec 309 IPC was held to be not in violation of Art 21. It was also held that since the section provides ample discretion to the courts in terms of awarding punishment, they have all the power to see to it that unwarranted harsh punishment is not given to any victim of circumstances who needs care and attention. Thus, it is not violative of Art 14 too and not unconstitutional. In 1994 came the landmark judgment of P. Rathinam v. Union of India[23]. The facts of this case were that the petitioner had unsuccessfully attempted to commit suicide and was charged under Sec 309 IPC for the offence of attempt to commit suicide. He filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of Sec 309 IPC saying that the said provision was in violation with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The court upheld his contention only on the basis that Sec .309 was in violation of Art 21. The court upheld the judgement in Marutis case[24] saying that if right to speak involves right not to speak[25] and right to do business includes right not to do business[26] then right to life also includes right not to live a forced life. Therefore, the Supreme Court struck down Sec.309 IPC as unconstitutional and ultra vires of Art 21. After the passing of the abovementioned judgement by the SC and till the judgement of Smt. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab[27], the people of India had a right to die at their will as long as they did not infringe other peoples rights. However, Gian Kaurs judgement changed the position of law in this regard. Overruling the previous judgement, it made the said provision valid again and thus, people lost their right to die. This judgement, being the latest law of the land, needs a detailed examination. The Constitution Bench in this case negative all the arguments given in the

previous judgment[28]. With regard to Article 21: The Supreme Court in this case held that Section 309 of IPC[29] does not violate Article 21. The Supreme Court differentiated between right to life and other fundamental rights by saying that for other rights like right to speak, the negative aspect of the right does not require doing of a positive or overt act but is by implication. However, when a person commits suicide, he has to do an overt act to end his life. Thus, an analogy cannot be drawn between right to life including right to die and other rights including their negative aspects. The court thus held: Article 21 is a provision guaranteeing protection of life and personal liberty and by no stretch of imagination can extinction of life be read to be included in 'protection of life[30]. Further, the court held that right to life under Art 21 is a natural right which is inherent in each and every person and is not a conferred right. But, suicide is an unnatural termination of life and therefore, does not fall under the purview of right to life. The court also held that right to life may include any aspect of life which makes it dignified but not that which extinguishes it. Therefore, right to die cannot be included as a part of right to life under Article 21. With Regards to Article 14: The court held that whatever be the reasons of attempting to commit suicide, the law cannot be differentiated as suicide in all cases involves intentionally taking ones own life. Moreover, it is open to the accused to prove that his act does not amount to attempting to commit suicide. Also, the circumstances related to each case are taken into account by the judge while awarding punishment to the accused. The court also held that the debate on desirability of retaining such a penal provision which punishes someone whose only offence is that he/she, being in such a state of despair that the person does not want to live any more, attempts to end his life, which includes the recommendation of the 42nd Law Commission to remove this provision, is not a basis for saying that Sec 309 is unconstitutional. For holding a provision to be unconstitutional, it has to be proved that the provision is violating a constitutional provision. On the basis of the above reasons, the Supreme Court held Sec 309 IPC to be constitutionally valid.

Analysis of the decision in Smt. Gian Kaur case In the judgement of Gian Kaur, the relevant case laws, books and articles have been examined in-depth by the Honorable Supreme Court and thus, a line of reasoning has been adopted. This line of reasoning is that Sec 309 is not unconstitutional because right to life cannot include right to die as suicide involves an overt act to unnaturally curtail ones life and thus, cannot be compared with negative aspects of other rights like right to speech where no overt act is needed for the negative aspect of the right. Also, this goes against public policy as State is under an obligation to protect the peoples life. This line of argument has a fundamental presumption that killing or attempting to kill oneself is wrong. This whole notion of killing oneself being a wrongful act is not a very justifiable one. The decision whether one wants to live or not is a fundamentally internal and inherent one and is a part of ones inalienable right to life. The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refer to a set of human rights that are absolute, not awarded by human power, nor transferable to another power, and incapable of repudiation. This means that an inalienable right is not conferred upon the people and thus, cannot be taken away from a person[31]. Moreover, the author thinks that there is no harm or alarm being caused in the society if a person tries to kill himself/herself as no other persons rights are being infringed by his committing suicide. So there is no question of suicide violating public policy. The said judgment says that Article 21 confers a natural right which cannot be unnaturally curtailed. This reasoning is fallacious because the right being natural means it is not conferred but inherent. Thus, if it is an inherent right then people definitely should be put in a position to decide whether they want to live and should not be made to live a forced life. Thus, if a person having an inalienable right to

life cannot be disallowed from ending or curtailing his life as when he deems fit. An apt conclusion of this discussion would be to quote the renowned philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer: "There is nothing in the world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person."[32]

Desirability of anti suicide law The hue and cry regarding the said provision has been that it punishes a person who is not an offender but a victim of circumstances[33]. Moreover, an argument has been advanced that the said provision does not deter people from committing suicide and hence, serves no purpose[34]. The following discussion determines whether these views hold any ground or not. Judicial opinion in a 1985 decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of State v. Sanjay Kumar Bhatia[35] where a boy was acquitted after attempting to commit suicide by taking Tik Twenty pills, the judge was strongly of the opinion that Section 309 IPC should be repealed because it is a draconian law which punishes someone who is already in a state of trauma and needs help, care and attention rather than punishment. This opinion was voiced earlier in the 42nd Law Commission Report in 1971 which stated the need for the removal of the said provision from the IPC as it punishes someone who is not an offender in the true sense. However, in Gian Kaurs[36] case, the court relied on various judgments to say that court punishes a person under Sec 309 IPC depending on the circumstances of the case and does not provide harsh penalties to victims of circumstances. Thus, it negated the view that the said provision is a draconian law by stating that Courts normally do not give harsh punishments to people who attempt to commit suicide. The following judgments shed light on how the courts have used their discretion in various cases. In the case of Radharani v. State of M.P.[37], where a desolate woman jumped into the well with her two children but was saved, the SC released her on mere admonition for her offence. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Maruti Shripati Dubal[38], where the accused was suffering from schizophrenia, the Supreme Court had considered the ailments of the accused and the long time elapsed between the alleged attempt to suicide and the commencement of trial and held as follows: The respondent deserves to be treated very sympathetically in the matter of awarding punishment for the said offence alleged against him. In the special facts of the case, we do not think that the respondent deserves to be subjected to trial for the aforesaid offence after such a distant time when even if the prosecution case is proved beyond reasonable doubt, the accused deserves a very lenient sentence of nominal fine. In order to do complete justice, in the facts of the case, we direct for quashing the said criminal case against the respondent.

Views on the issue Even though the courts have ample discretion in terms of awarding punishment under Section 309 and the courts have used this discretion compassionately most of the times, there is still the social stigma which one faces being an offender. This only adds to the persons already existing miseries which led him to attempt the suicide. More importantly, just because Courts till now have refrained from granting harsh punishment for attempting to commit suicide, it is no guarantee that tomorrow any Court will definitely be compassionate to someone who survives an attempt to commit suicide. The Court has discretion to award even imprisonment up to a period of one year. The point here is: does someone who is in such a desperate situation that he has attempted suicide deserve punishment or be labelled as an offender at all?

The main flaw in Section 309 IPC is that it does not solve any purpose. There are three basic theories of punishment deterrent, reformative and retributive[39]. The punishment under Sec 309 does not fit into any of the three theories as is attempted to be proved below: 1. Deterrent theory says that the aim of punishment awarded to an offender is to make people aware that if they commit such a crime, they would also be awarded such a punishment and hence, prevent them from committing crimes. Section 309 IPC definitely does not deter any person from attempting to commit suicide because no person who is in such a hapless state so as to contemplate and attempt to commit suicide would think about what would happen to him if he fails to do so. 2. Reformative theory is defined as the effort to restore a man to society as a better and wiser man and a good citizen. According to the reformative theory, the offender should be reformed and rehabilitated by counselling, spiritual means etc. A person who is in a state of severe despair and hopelessness and has already attempted to commit suicide does need to be punished but reformed. Under Sec 309, the punishment provides for punishment and not rehabilitation and therefore is not reformative. 3. Retributive theory says that an offender ought to be punished because he has committed a crime. Crime is a wrong which is said to be committed against society. Since, committing suicide does not harm or cause alarm in the society, it cannot be said to be a crime. Therefore, there is no need or reason to punish someone who attempts to commit suicide. This clearly proves that Sec 309 IPC is ineffective as no purpose is solved by giving such punishment as contemplated by the said provision[40]. Thus, Section 309 of IPC should be omitted as its a redundant section.

Analysis of Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India In a path-breaking judgement (Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India[41]), the Supreme Court allowed "passive euthanasia" of withdrawing life support to patients in permanently vegetative state (PVS) but rejected outright active euthanasia[42] of ending life through administration of lethal substances. The Supreme Court of India, in its landmark judgment, pronounced passive euthanasia as permissible under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. The main ground for adjudication before the apex court was whether a person who advertently refuses to accept lifesaving treatments or food in order to die, commits a crime under IPC section 309 (suicide attempt). This landmark judgment was pronounced in relation to a journalist-writer, Pinki Viranis plea to allow passive euthanasia for Aruna Shanbhag. Aruna Shanbaug hailing from Haldipur town of Uttar Kannada district in Karnataka, was a junior nurse, at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Mumbai and was planning to get married to a medic in the hospital. On the night of 27 November 1973, Shanbaug was sexually assaulted by Sohanlal Bhartha Walmiki, a ward boy at the King Edward Memorial Hospital. Walmiki was motivated partly by resentment for being ordered about and castigated by Shanbaug. Walmiki attacked her while she was changing clothes in the hospital basement. He choked her with a dog chain and sodomized her. The asphyxiation cut off oxygen supply to her brain, resulting in brain stem contusion injury and cervical cord injury apart from leaving her cortically blind. The police case was registered as a case of robbery and attempted murder on account of the concealment

of anal rape by the doctors under the instructions of the Dean of KEM, Dr. Deshpande, perhaps to avoid the social rejection of the victim and her impending marriage. Walmiki was caught and convicted, and served two concurrent seven year sentences for assault and robbery, neither for rape or sexual molestation, nor for the "unnatural sexual offence" A petition for euthanasia was first by Pinki Virani, a journalist and her friend who has written a book on the woman who she is being forced to live her life stripped of basic dignity. The Supreme Court praised Ms. Viranis concern, but ruled out that her relationship with the patient does not give her this right to file a petition on behalf of Ms. Shanbaug for mercy killing. The only party that can appeal for the euthanasia is the staff of KEM hospital where she had served as a nurse. Refusing mercy killing of Aruna Shanbaug, lying in a vegetative state for 37 years in a Mumbai hospital, a two-judge bench of justices Markandeya Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra, laid a set of tough guidelines under which passive euthanasia can be legalised through high court monitored mechanism. Ms Shanbaug has, however, changed forever India's approach to the contentious issue of euthanasia. The verdict on her case on 7th March, 2011 allowed passive euthanasia contingent upon circumstances. So other Indians can now argue in court for the right to withhold medical treatment - take a patient off a ventilator, for example, in the case of an irreversible coma. The judgement made it clear that passive euthanasia will "only be allowed in cases where the person is in persistent vegetative state or terminally ill. The apex court while framing the guidelines for passive euthanasia asserted that it would now become the law of the land until Parliament enacts a suitable legislation to deal with the issue. The bench comprising Hon. Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra also asked Parliament to delete Section 309 IPC (attempt to suicide) as it has become "anachronistic though it has become constitutionally valid. "A person attempts suicide in a depression, and hence he needs help, rather than punishment," Justice Katju writing the judgement said. The apex court said though there is no statutory provision for withdrawing life support system from a person in permanently vegetative state, it was of the view that "passive euthanasia" could be permissible in certain cases for which it laid down guidelines and cast the responsibility on high courts to take decisions on pleas for mercy killings. "We agree with senior counsel T R Andhyarujina (who assisted the court in the matter) that passive euthanasia should be permitted in our country in certain situations, and we disagree with Attorney General (G E Vahanvati) that it should never be permitted," said the bench. Thus, in each case, the relevant high court will evaluate the merits of the case, and refer the case to a medical board before deciding on whether passive euthanasia can apply. And till Parliament introduces new laws on euthanasia, it is Ms Shanbaug's case that is to be used as a point of reference by other courts.

Conclusion

Suicide occurs in all ages and we should remember that life is a gift given by God and he alone can take it. Its premature termination cannot be approved by any society. But when a troubled individual tries to end his life, it would be cruel and irrational to visit him with punishment on his failure to die[43].

Attempt to suicide is more a manifestation of a diseased condition of mind deserving of care rather than imprisonment. The law makers should realize that criminal law must act as effective machinery to cure the intended and not act with misplaced over zeal. The above discussion

clearly indicates that Section 309, IPC does not stand up to the constitutional requirements and is otherwise also an ineffective and a draconian law which punishes not offender s but victims of circumstances. Also, it does not serve any purpose as no person contemplating suicide is deterred by the thought of being imprisoned for a year if he fails in his attempt. An important conclusion of the discussion is that each member of society has an inalienable right to die also, embedded in his right to life, the inherent decision making power on the fundamental question of whether or not to continue with life. Thus, right to die of ones own free will and right not to live a forced life is a Fundamental Right inherent in us and also protected by our Constitution under Article 21 and it should not be criminal. The right to die that we have cannot be curbed unreasonably but regulated in a reasonable manner. In light of the above, the author proposes legislative repeal of Section 309, IPC and enactment of another legislation which regulates our right to die by providing reasonable reformative measures. Such a law should provide counselling, rehabilitation etc. to any person who attempts to commit suicide. This way the person has a chance to be reformed, be given a new perspective and a new will to live. For bringing about this change, the government shall have to provide new infrastructure like rehabilitation centers, people who can impart lessons on spirituality, psychologists, psychiatrists etc. Also, proper procedures for rehabilitation and making the Government aware of the problems that made the person attempt to take his own life should be set in place. All this has to be ensured in such legislation. The proposed legislation shall be constitutionally correct as attempt to commit suicide would not remain a punishable offence but shall only be regulated by Government through a just, fair and reasonable procedure. The Government shall then be under an obligation to try and reform a person who has lost all hope in life instead of punishing him. Further, although India has definitely moved a step forward towards recognizing the right to death with dignity, what the law lacks is an efficient institution that safeguards the autonomy of an individual even while she is on the death bed. The law as it is currently does not protect the constitutionally guaranteed right to life of an individual, which when expansively interpreted includes her right to death with dignity. It is thus suggested that implementing living wills with proper safeguards is the best way to fill up this current gap in the law which does not allow for the protection of an individuals right to self determination while unconscious. In conclusion, the upholding of the right to death is paramount. While the judgement in Aruna Shanbaug is truly commendable and ground-breaking, the question of whether it truly protects the right to death must be asked. In my humble opinion, this right can be better upheld through the implementation of proper legislation in India. Through the use of legislation implementing proper safeguards, we can ensure that a legal paradox does not exist in our system.

References Books Referred K.D. Gaur, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials (Butterworths, New Delhi, 3rd edn., 2007). K.D. Gaur, A Textbook on The Indian Penal Code (Universal Law Publishing Co., Delhi, 3rd edn., 2007). Articles Referred Ian Dowbiggin, A Concise History of Euthanasia: Life, Death, God and Medicine, 1st ed, (United States of America: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2005) Paterson, Craig. A History of Ideas Concerning Suicide, Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia from http://ssrn.org/ Risabh Gupta, Euthanasia: Contemporary Debates, Manupatra Articles Database accessed at http:// www. manupatrafast. in/ Articles /PopOpenArticle .asp x? ID=2b53e2e8-dcc6-489c-aa6e 3e83df4014d9& txt search = Text %20 Search: % 20309 Vadeyar, Bhargavi and Singh, Lavanya, Living Wills in India: A Safeguard to a Patient's Right to Death with Dignity (August 5, 2013). Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2305897 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2305897 Cases Referred Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v Union of India and Ors, (2011) 4 SCC 454 (India) Deepchand v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1959 SC 648 Jagadeeswar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1988) Cr LJ 549. Kochuni KK v. State of Madras AIR 1960 SC 1080 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 2 SCR 621. Maruti Shripati Dubalv. State of Maharashtra, (1987) Cr LJ 743. MRF Ltd. v. Inspector, Kerala Government (1998) 8 SCC 227 at para 13 P. Rathinam v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0433/1994. Radharani v. State of M.P., (1981) Cr LJ 1705. State of Gujarat v. Sri Ambica Mills AIR 1974 SC State of Maharashtra v. Maruti Shripati Dubal, MANU/SC/0115/1997. State of West Bengal v.Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75. State v. Sanjay Kumar Bhatia, (1985) Cri LJ 931. Reports Referred 42nd Law Commission Report 210th Law Commission Report Statutes Referred Constitution of India, 1950 Indian Penal Code, 1860 Journals Referred Criminal Law Journal (Cr LJ) Manupatra (MANU) Supreme Court Reporter (SCR)

Websites Referred http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights http://ssrn.org/ http://www.antipsychiatry.org/suicide.htm http://www.maithrikochi.org/india_suicide_statistics.htm http://www.naavi.org/praveen_dalal/crime_punishment_sept_08.htm.

[1] Available at < http://academic.udayton.edu/VernelliaRandall/poetry/Invictus.htm> taken on 22nd August, 2013

[2] Suicide. (2008).In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved 22nd August, 2013 from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suicide

[3] Available at < http://www.spirit-of-india.com/group/Buddhist/BuddhaPurima.html> on 22nd August, 2013

[4] Available at < http://www.moreorless.au.com/heroes/gandhi.html> on 22nd August, 2013

[5] Ram Sunder Dubey v. State , AIR 1962 All 262

[6] Section 309 -Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or both.

[7] Ibid

[8] K.D. Gaur, A Textbook on The Indian Penal Code (Universal Law Publishing Co., Delhi, 3rd edn., 2004) p 469

[9] Maruti Shripati Dubalv. State of Maharashtra, (1987) Cr LJ 743; P. Rathinam v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1844

[10] Chenna Jagadeeswar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1988) Cr LJ 549; Smt. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 1257

[11] State v. Sanjay Kumar Bhatia, (1985) Cri LJ 931; 42nd Law Commission Report, 1971.

[12] Available at < http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/report210.pdf> on 22nd August, 2013

[13] Supra at 6

[14] Supra at 10

[15] Article 21 states : No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

[16] (1978) 2 SCR 621.

[17] Supra at 15

[18] Deepchand v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1959 SC 648 ; State of Gujarat v. Sri Ambica Mills AIR 1974 SC 1300

[19] (1987) Cr LJ 743

[20]Article 14 The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.Any law which is discriminatory or arbitrary in nature without reasonable justification for the discrimination made is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75

[21] Putting unequals at equal footing is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution - State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75

[22] (1988) Cr LJ 549

[23] P. Rathinam v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1844

[24] Maruti Shripati Dubalv. State of Maharashtra, (1987) Cr LJ 743

[25] MRF Ltd. v. Inspector, Kerala Government (1998) 8 SCC 227 at 13

[26] Kochuni KK v. State of Madras AIR 1960 SC 1080

[27] Supra at 10

[28] Maruti Shripati Dubalv. State of Maharashtra, (1987) Cr LJ 743; P. Rathinam v. Union of India AIR 1994 SC 1844

[29] Supra at 6

[30] Smt. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 1257 at 19 [31] K.D. Gaur, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials( Butterworths, New Delhi, 3rd edn., 2007).

[32] http://www.antipsychiatry.org/suicide.htm, as visited on 22nd August,2013

[33] Available at < http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/en/60.pdf> on 22nd August, 2013

[34] Lee, Kiat Seng, and Life Policies - A Fresh Perspective. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, pp. 79-110, 1996

[35] (1985) Cri LJ 931

[36] Supra at 30

[37] (1981) Cr LJ 1705

[38] (1987) Cr LJ. 743

[39] Risabh Gupta, Euthanasia: Contemporary Debates, Manupatra Articles Database accessed at http:// www. manupatrafast.in/Articles/PopOpenArticle.aspx?ID=2b53e2e8-dcc6-489c-aa6e 3e83df4014d9& txt search = Text%20Search:%20309 on 22nd August, 2013

[40] K.D. Gaur, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials (Butterworths, New Delhi, 3rd edn., 2007) p 9. [41] Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v Union of India and Ors, (2011) 4 SCC 454 (India)

[42] Ian Dowbiggin, A Concise History of Euthanasia: Life, Death, God and Medicine, 1st ed, (United States of America: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2005) at 11 See also Paterson, Craig. A History of Ideas Concerning Suicide, Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia at http://ssrn.org/ [43] Taken from <http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/report210.pdf> on 22nd August, 2013.