EUTHANASIA AND ASSISTED SUICIDE A LEGAL

AND ETHICAL DILEMMA IN INDIAN CONTEXT – AN

ANALYTICAL STUDY.

Mitali Jain

3 rd Year, B.L.S., LL.B.,

Government Law College, Mumbai

Shivangi Mishra

3 rd Year, B.L.S., LL.B.,

Government Law College, Mumbai

INTRODUCTION

Every individual goals to live and appreciate the products of life until they die. However,
at times an individual is envious to end his life by adopting unnatural means. To end one's
life by unnatural means is an evidence of variety from the entrenched standards of nature.
Right when a man decides to end his life by his own exhibition we call it "suicide"
however when it is ended on the solicitation of the deceased by others, is called
"euthanasia" or "mercy killing".
The expression “euthanasia” is derived from the Greek word “eu”, signifying “good” and
“thanatos” signifying “death,” and early on signified a “good” or “easy” death1.
Euthanasia is the practice of killing a person for giving him relief from incurable pain or
suffering or allowing or causing painless death when life has become meaningless
and dis- agreeable2. It is also called “mercy killing”. Assisted suicide is, however,
characterized as "the demonstration of purposefully murdering oneself with the help of
another who purposely gives the learning, means, or both". Euthanasia literally is the

1
Nadeau R. Gentles, Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: The Current Debate. Toronto: Stoddart Publishing
Co. Limited; 1995 Charting the Legal Trends; p. 727.
2
Nandy, Apurba. (1995). Principles of Forensic Medicine, 1st Edition, Page 38. Kolkata, New Central
Book Agency (P) Ltd.
administration of a lethal agent by another person to a patient for the purpose of relieving
the patient's intolerable and incurable suffering3.
In the present day, euthanasia is restricted to the killing of patients by specialists at the
solicitation of the patient so as to free him of intense torment or from terminal
illness.Typically, the doctor's rationale is benevolent and expected to release the patient
from an incurable disease, intolerable suffering, misery and pain of the life.It is
predominantly connected with individuals with terminal disease or who have get to be
crippled and would prefer not to experience whatever is left of their life enduring. An
extremely disabled or in critical condition individual ought to have the privilege to decide
to live or or die.This privilege ought not only be designated to bodied people of sound
personality, however to every single individual.
Euthanasia is a disputable issue involving ethics, qualities and convictions of the general
public. As of the late improvements and the level headed discussion in regards to
euthanasia in Netherlands and England, it has been considered lawful. Subsequently,
huge numbers of countries of the world are presently debating whether or not euthanasia
ought to be permitted.
As of late, in the Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India case4 for euthanasia, the
Supreme Court of India gave a decision that permitted passive euthanasia to be
considered legitimate. The Supreme Court gave a landmark judgment on 7th March
2011 with regard to the issue of euthanasia or mercy-killing.

DIFFERENT TYPES OF EUTHANASIA

Euthanasia is classified as follows:-

1. Active or Positive euthanasia.
2. Passive or negative euthanasia.
3. Voluntary euthanasia.
4. Involuntary euthanasia.
5. Non- Voluntary euthanasia.

3
Decisions near the end of life. Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs: American Medical
Association.JAMA. 1992;267:2229–33. [PubMed].
4
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, 2011(3) SCALE 298 : MANU/SC/0176/2011.
Active or Positive Euthanasia- It is defined as the mode of ending life in which the intent
is to cause the patient’s death in a single act(also called mercy killing) 5.Active euthanasia
includes effortlessly killing people for forgiving reasons, as when a specialist administer
lethal dose of drug to a patient.Active euthanasia involves the utilization of deadly
substances or doses. It is considered as the most dubious means to end one’s life.

Passive or negative Euthanasia- Euthanasia is considered passive or negative when

demise is created on the grounds that a treatment that is maintaining the life of the patient
is held off and the patient dies as a result thereof. For instance, withdrawing life
supporting gadgets from a genuine patient, uprooting which may cause the death of the
patient.
In "passive euthanasia" the doctors are not actively killing anyone; they are simply not
saving him6. It entails the withholding of common treatments, such as antibiotics,
necessary for the continuance of life7.
Passive euthanasia occurs when the patient dies because the medical professionals either
don't do something necessary to keep the patient alive, or when they stop doing
something that is keeping the patient alive8.

Voluntary Euthanasia- Voluntary euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of an

individual in a painless manner.It is practiced with the expressed desire and consent of the
patient.Voluntary refusal of food and fluids (VRFF) or Patient Refusal of Nutrition and
Hydration (PRNH) is bordering on euthanasia. According to some authors, it is a form of
passive euthanasia9, while according to others it is different because it is treated
differently from legal point of view and often saw it as a more moral and ethical option10.

5
Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing © Farlex 2012.
6
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, 2011(3) SCALE 298; MANU/SC/0176/2011.
7
Harris, NM. (Oct 2001). “The euthanasia debate”. J R Army Med Corps 147(3):367-
70.doi:10.1136/jramc-147-03-22. PMID 11766225.
8
July 20, 2007 - BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation).
9
Patient Refusal of Nutrition and Hydration: Walking the Ever-Finer Line[dead link]
10
Harvath, TA. (May 2004). "Voluntary refusal of food and fluids: attitudes of Oregon hospice nurses and
social workers". Int J Palliat Nurs. 10 (5): 236–41.PMID 15215708.
Involuntary Euthanasia- Involuntary euthanasia occurs when euthanasia is performed on
an individual who is capable of providing informed consent, yet does not,either in light of
the fact that they don't decide to die, or in light of the fact that they were not inquired 11 .
Although clear cases of involuntary euthanasia would be relatively rare (for example,
where A shoots B without B's consent, to save her from falling into the hands of a sadistic
torturer). However, involuntary euthanasia is contrasted with voluntary euthanasia
(euthanasia performed with the patient's consent) and non-voluntary euthanasia (where
the patient is unable to give their informed consent, for example when a patient is
comatose or a child). Involuntary euthanasia is is broadly contradicted and is viewed as a
wrongdoing in lawful purview's, and is at times utilized as an explanation behind not
changing laws identifying with different types of euthanasia12.

Non- Voluntary Euthanasia- Non-voluntary euthanasia (sometimes known as mercy

killing) is euthanasia led where the unequivocal consent of the individual concerned is
inaccessible, for example, when the individual is in a determined vegetative state, or on
account of youthful children13.It is directed against the will of the patient. It alludes to
completion the life of a man who is not rationally equipped to make an educated
demand to die.  In Non-Voluntary euthanasia the patient has left no such living will, or
might not have expected any such mishap or projection. In instances of non involuntary
euthanasia, it is frequently the relatives, who settle on the choice.The choice can be made
in view of what the weakened individual would have needed, or it could be made on
substituted judgment of what the decision maker would need were he or she in the
crippled individual's place, or at long last, the choice could be made by the specialist by
their own particular choice.
However, it contrasts with involuntary euthanasia, where euthanasia is
performed against the will of the patient14.

11
Jackson, Jennifer (2006). Ethics in medicine. Polity. p. 137. ISBN 0-7456-2569-X.
12
Chapple, A.; Ziebland, S.; McPherson, A.; Herxheimer, A. (Dec 2006). "What people close to death say
about euthanasia and assisted suicide: a qualitative study". 
13
Mercy killing facts. Buzzle.
14
LaFollette, Hugh (2002). Ethics in practice: an anthology. Oxford: Blackwell pp. 25–26. ISBN 0-631-
22834-9.
EUTHANASIA AND SUICIDE

Suicide and euthanasia are two different concepts. According to Merriam-Webster15,

suicide is 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.” Suicide is derived from
the Latin ‘suicidium’, from ‘sui caedere’, which means “to kill oneself.”In this manner,
suicide could be termed as the purposeful end of one's life without anyone else's input,
committed for different reasons ,mostly it is because of mental disorder such as
depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, alcoholism, or drug abuse.
Euthanasia has not been characterized in the religious books subsequently it can be
assumed that it is precluded by all religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism, as
they consider euthanasia as an offense towards God, for they believe that only God has
the right and power to give life and take it away. Indian law takes into consideration the
renowned Roman saying, "Actus non facit reum nisi men sit rea."according to which an
act is not criminal act in the event that it is carried out or discarded without the intention
However, applying the above legal maxim in instances of euthanasia one may reason that
since the victim has given the consent to die consequently, the accused is not obligated
for any offense. In any case, the vital inquiry still remains as to whether giving consent
for killing a man pardon the guilty party from his criminal obligation.
However, the Indian law is very clear on this point. One may contend that giving the
consent absolves a man from obligation or he may argue the guard of "volenti non fit
injuria."Law related to consent contained in Indian Penal Code is exceptionally
comprehensive and leaves no uncertainty to clarify it. Section 87 of the Indian Penal
Code clearly sets out that consent can't be argued as a guard where the consent is given to
bring about death. The Bombay High Court in Maruti Shripati Dubal case16 has
endeavored to make a qualification in the middle of suicide and euthanasia. As per the
court the suicide by its very nature is a demonstration of self murdering or end of one's
own life by one's demonstration without help from others. Euthanasia however refers to

15
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suicide (11 May 2015).
16
Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharastra; 1987 Cri.L.J 743 (Bomb).
the intercession of other human agency to end one's life. Therefore, the court held that
suicide is permissible and euthanasia, in whatever circumstances, would amount to
homicide, and therefore not permissible.
In Olga Tellis & others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation17, popularly known as
Pavement Dweller’s case wherein Apex Court held that right to life also includes right to
livelihood. However,the Bombay High Court observed that suicide by its nature is a
demonstration of self executing, a demonstration of ending one's own act and without the
guide and help of other human agency. Euthanasia or mercy killing on the other hand
means and implies the intervention of other human agency to end the life.Therefore
Mercy killing is not suicide and hence would not be covered under Section 309 IPC.
The two ideas are both truthfully and legitimately different. In assisted suicide, the
individual must make intentional moves to realize his or her own death. Medical staff
may give help, yet the patient confers the demonstration of suicide while in active
euthanasia , it is the specialist who closes the life of the patient. At this point when a
specialist helps individuals to murder themselves it is called 'Specialist Assisted Suicide'.
The Apex Court distinguished suicide from euthanasia in the case of P. Ratinam
Nagbhushan Patnaik v. Union of India18 and observed that “The legal and questions
related to euthanasia are in many ways different other from those raised in suicide”.
Therefore, justification for allowing persons to commit suicide cannot be played down or
cut down because of any encouragement to persons pleading for legislation of mercy
killing. The Court further clarified that self-killing is conceptually different from abetting
others to kill themselves and observed that one of the objects of punishment is protection
of society from the depredation of dangerous persons in case of suicide. Considered from
this point of view, suicide is not an offence. Therefore, the arguments that by quashing
Section 309 I.P.C. which makes attempt to suicide a penal offence, Section 306, I.P.C.
would not survive, is not tenable. But the ruling in Ratinam’s case had been overruled by
the Apex Court in the case of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab19 where the Supreme Court
clearly held that euthanasia and assisted suicide are not lawful in our country.
The court referred to House of Lords in Airedale case20, where the House of Lords
17
 AIR 1986 SC 180.
18
AIR 1994 SC 1844.
19
1996 (2) SCC 648 : AIR 1996 SC 946.
20
Airdale NHS Trust v. Bland, 1993(1) All ER 821 (HL).
acknowledged that withdrawal of life supporting frameworks on the premise of fully
informed medical consultation, would be legal on the grounds that such withdrawal
would just permit the patient who is beyond recovery.

HISTORICAL & RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND

The origin of the contemporary debate on euthanasia started in 1870. However,euthanasia

is known to have been debated and practiced long before that date.The idea of Euthanasia
was not something new or obscure to human development.
It is accepted that euthanasia began in old Greece and Rome around the fifth century B.C.
They performed it in certain circumstances like for instance, in the Greek city of Sparta
babies with serious conception deformities were put to death. Despite the fact that
specialists should take after the Hippocratic Oath, numerous did not and consequently
would wind up giving patients poison if they asked them to. Amid the Middle Ages,
euthanasia was essentially impossible. In the event that one conferred suicide, the law in
Europe was for the body to be "dragged through the streets or nailed to a barrel and left to
drift downriver "21. Amid the Seventeenth and Eighteenth hundreds of years euthanasia
remained a theme of question. On the other hand, individuals kept on dismissing
euthanasia and assisted suicide. It wasn't until 1828, for the first American law to make
assisted suicide illicit. In spite of the fact that America banned euthanasia and assisted
suicide, a few states were still trying to get a law passed at the state level. Amid the
1930s, euthanasia began to pick up backing in the US and social orders who were
agreeable to it began to appear in the US, as well as in England too. Be that as it may,
World War Two would change euthanasia for eternity. Hitler and the Nazis murdered a
huge number of individuals utilizing euthanasia. Hitler and organization did this by
gassing, medications, and starving the individuals. This put a stop on the development of
euthanasia as Americans became less enamored with euthanasia. A survey 22 asked
Americans in 1950 whether euthanasia was right or not and "just 36 percent replied "yes"
pretty nearly 10 percent not as much as in the late 1930s". The late 20th and mid 21st
century would be the time for euthanasia.
21
 http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-euthanasia.htm.
22
 http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000130.
In India, the historical backdrop of Vedic age is loaded with various illustrations of
suicides conferred on religious grounds. The Mahabharata and the Ramayana will be
likewise full of cases of religious suicides. Numerous antiquated writings including
the Bible, the Koran and the Rig-Veda witness self demolition or suicide. Numerous
antiquated writings including the Bible, the Koran and the Rig-Veda witness self
demolition or suicide.
Most Hindus would assert that a specialist ought not acknowledge a patient's request for
euthanasia, since this will bring about the spirit and body to be isolated at an unnatural
time. The outcome will harm the karma of both specialist and patient. Different Hindus
accept that euthanasia can't be permitted in light of the fact that it breaks the instructing
of Ahimsa (doing no mischief). In any case, some Hindus say that by serving to end a
difficult life a man is performing a decent deed and so satisfying their moral
commitments.Muslims are against Euthanasia. They accept that all human life is
sacrosanct in light of the fact that it is given by Allah, and that Allah picks to what extent
every individual will live. Individuals ought not meddle in this.Euthanasia and suicide are
excluded among the reasons took into account executing in Islam. Christians are also
against euthanasia. The contentions will be typically constructed on the fact that life is
a blessing from God and that individuals are made in God's picture. Birth and death are a
piece of the life forms which God has made, so we ought to regard them. In this manner
no person has the power to take the life of any guiltless individual, regardless of the
possibility that that individual needs to die.
Sikhs get their morals to a great extent from the teachings of their sacred writing, Guru
Granth Sahib, and the Sikh Code of Conduct. The Sikh Gurus rejected suicide as an
obstruction in God's arrangement. Enduring, they said, was a piece of the operation of
karma, and individuals ought to acknowledge it without protestation as well as act in
order to make the best of the circumstance that karma has given them.

GLOBAL SITUATION
There are different laws pertaining to Euthanasia in diverse nations,with different
applicability.There are a few cases relating to Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in diverse
nations, some of which have been outlined beneath.

1.United States- Active Euthanasia is illicit in all states in U.S.A- Washington v.

Glucksberg23 and Vacco v. Quill24 yet physician assisted dying is still considered legal in
the states of Oregon, Washington and Montana.

2.Canada- In Canada, Physician Assisted Suicide is illegal vide Section 241(b) of the
Criminal Code of Canada according to the Judgment by the Supreme Court of Canada in
Sue Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General)25. Even patients do not have the
right to demand for euthanasia or assisted suicide.

3.Netherlands- Euthanasia in the Netherlands is regulated by the "Termination of Life on

Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act", 2002. It states that euthanasia
and physician-assisted suicide are not punishable if the attending physician acts in
accordance with the criteria of due care. These criteria concern the patient's request,
the patient's suffering (unbearable and hopeless), the information provided to the
patient, the presence of reasonable alternatives, consultation of another physician
and the applied method of ending life26.
According to the penal code of the Netherlands killing a person on his solicitation is
culpable with twelve years of detainment or fine and also helping a man in submitting
suicide is culpable with three years of detainment or fine. But the law allows a medical
review board to suspend indictment of specialists who performed euthanasia when it is
performed as per the criteria of due consideration.

4.Switzerland- Switzerland has an irregular position on assisted suicide; it is legally

permitted and can be performed by non-physicians. As per Article 115 of Swiss

23
521 US 702 (1997).
24
521 US 793 (1997).
25
(1993) 3 SCR 519.
26
Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519.
Penal Code, suicide is not a crime and assisting suicide is a crime if only if the intention
is selfish. It doesn't require the association of doctor nor is that the patient at death's door.
It just obliges that the intention must be unselfish.
On the other hand, euthanasia is unlawful, the distinction between assisted suicide and
euthanasia being that while in the previous the patient manages the deadly infusion
himself, in the last a specialist or some other individual directs it.

5.Belgium- Belgium got to be the second nation in Europe after Netherlands to sanction
the act of euthanasia ‘Belgium Act on Euthanasia in September 2002. Patients wishing to
end their own particular lives must be cognizant when the interest is made and repeat
their solicitation for euthanasia. They must be under "steady and insufferable physical or
mental agony" resulting from a mishap or serious sickness.

6.Australia- The Northern Territory of Australia turned into the first nation to sanction
euthanasia by passing the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, 1996. It was held by the
Supreme Court of Northern Territory of Australia to be lawful for the situation Wake v.
Northern Territory of Australia27. At the same time, later an ensuing enactment that was
the Euthanasia Laws Act, 1997 made it again unlawful by canceling the Northern
Territory enactment.

7.England- In England, the House of Lords in Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland28

allowed non- voluntary euthanasia in the event of patients in a steady vegetative state. It
was a case identifying with withdrawal of artificial measures for duration of life by a
doctor. It was held that it would be unlawful to direct treatment to a grown-up who is
cognizant and of sound personality, without his consent. Such a man is totally at freedom
to decay to experience treatment, regardless of the fact that the aftereffect of his doing as
such will be that he will die. It was further held that if a man, because of mischance or
some other reason gets to be oblivious and is hence not ready to give or with-hold agree
to restorative treatment, in that circumstance it is legal for medical personnel to apply

27
(1996) 109 NTR 1.
28
1993(1) All ER 821 (HL).
such treatment as they would see it is to the greatest advantage of the oblivious patient. It
is not legitimate for a specialist to direct a medication to his understanding to realize
his death, even however that course will be provoked by a helpful longing to end his
misery, however incredible that torment may be. All the judges of the House of Lords for
this situation were concurred that patient ought to be permitted to die.

LEGAL ITY OF EUTHANASIA IN INDIA

The law of, though active in many countries, has been a sleeping giant in India, as
euthanasia goes on behind closed doors. In India, euthanasia is without a doubt unlawful.
In instances of voluntary euthanasia (where the patient agrees to death) , cases involving
an intention on the part of the medical personnel to kill the patient, such cases would
unmistakably fall under the purview of clause first of Section 300 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.However, in cases of substantial consent of the expired Exception 5 to the
Section 300 would be pulled in and the medical personnel or the executioner would be
culpable under Section 304 for at culpable homicide not amounting to murder, . Instances
of non-voluntary euthanasia would be struck by stipulation one to Section 92 of the IPC
and along these lines be rendered illicit.
The law in India is likewise clear on the part of assisted suicide. Right to suicide is not
one of the accessible "right" in India – it is culpable under the India Penal Code, 1860.
Procurement of punishing suicide is contained in section 305 (Abetment of suicide of
child or insane individual), 306 (Abetment of suicide) and 309 (Attempt to commit
suicide) of the said Code. Section 309, IPC has been conveyed under the scanner
concerning its legality.
Right to life-Article 21 is an essential right cherished in Constitution of India. Article 21
ensures the privilege to life in India. It is contended that the privilege to life under Article
21 incorporates the privilege to die. Thus, mercy killing is considered to be a legitimate
right of a person.
However ,the Judgment of the five judge bench of the Supreme Court in case of Gian
Kaur v. State of Punjab29 made it clear that the “right to life” guaranteed by Article 21 of

29
1996 (2) SCC 648 : AIR 1996 SC 946.
the Constitution does not include the “right to die”.This case also upheld the
constitutional validity of the offense of Attempt to Commit Suicide under Section 309 of
IPC, by overruling a previous decision of a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the
case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India, (1994)30 that had held to the contrary. However, a
need was felt to delete this section as it has turned to be chronologically erroneous.
A man endeavors suicide in a depression, and subsequently he needs help, as opposed to
punishment. The Delhi High Court in State v. Sanjay Kumar Bhatia31, in managing a case
under section 309 of IPC watched that section 309 of I.P.C. has no defense to proceed
stay on the statute book. The Bombay High Court in Maruti Shripati Dubal v. Condition
of Maharashtra32 analyzed the protected legitimacy of section 309 and held that the
section is violative of Article 14 and in addition Article 21 of the Constitution. The
Section was held to be discriminatory in nature and also arbitrary and violated equality
guaranteed by Article 14. Article 21 was interpreted to include the right to die or to take
away one’s life. Hence it was held to be violative of Article 21.
The Supreme Court in Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India33 legalized passive
euthanasia is legal in India. On 7 March 2011 the Supreme Court of India legalized
passive euthanasia by means of the withdrawal of life support to patients in permanent
vegetative state34. However, forms of Active euthanasia, including the administration of
lethal compounds, are still considered illegal.
Although of late, still on 10, December 2015 a decision was taken by the Union Home
Ministry to Decriminalize attempt to suicide (Section 309 35) after 20th Law
Commission36.

30
3 SCC 394.
31
1985 Cri.L.J 931 (Del.).
32
1987 Cri.L.J 743 (Bom.).
33
2011(3) SCALE 298 : MANU/SC/0176/2011.
34
Venkatesan, J. (7 March 2011). "Supreme Court disallows friend's plea for mercy killing of vegetative
Aruna". Chennai, India: The Hindu. Retrieved 7 March2011.
35
Sec 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 with
both”.
36
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Government-decriminalizes-attempt-to-commit-suicide-removes-
section-309/articleshow/45452253.cms.
ARUNA’S CASE – A DAWN OF HOPE IN INDIAN LEGAL SCENARIO

Causing the death of a person, who is in permanent vegetative state with no chance of
recovery, by withdrawing the artificial life support is only an omission ( of support of
life) and not an “act of killing”.- The Supreme Court of India.

Recently, in the Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India 37 case for euthanasia, the
Supreme Court of India gave a decision permitting passive euthanasia to be considered
lawful. The Supreme Court’s verdict on 7th March 2011 was a landmark judgment with
regard to the issue of euthanasia or mercy killing. In this case a petition was filed before
the Supreme Court by Ms Pinky Virani38, who claims to be the next friend of Aruna
Shanbaug for seeking permission for euthanasia for Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug who is
lying in a Persistent Vegetative State (P.V.S.) for 3 years following the sexual assault 39
and for all intents and purposes a dead individual and has no condition of mindfulness
and her brain is essentially dead.
Aruna Shanbaug worked as a junior nurse at King Edward Memorial
Hospital, Parel, Mumbai. On the night of 27 November 1973, Shanbaug was sexually
attacked by Sohanlal Bhartha Walmiki, a sweeper on contract at the King Edward
Memorial Hospital40. Sohanlal assaulted her while she was changing garments in the
basement of the hospital. He gagged her with a dog chain and sodomized her.
The asphyxiation cut off oxygen to her brain, resulting in brain stem contusion injury,
cervical cord injury, and cortical blindness.She was found with blood splattered around
her at 7:45 am the following morning by a cleaner41.
The police case was enlisted as an instance of theft and endeavored homicide because of
the concealment of anal rape by the doctors under the guidelines of the Dean of KEM, Dr.
Deshpande, maybe to keep Shanbaug from being socially rejected42 or to evade

37
2011(3) SCALE 298 : MANU/SC/0176/2011.
38
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinki_Virani.
39
Malavika Karlekar. "Review: Ten Minutes To Hell". Outlook India. Retrieved 24 May2015.
40
Virani, Pinki (2003-09-10). "Aruna is still on our conscience". The Times of India.
41
"Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union Of India [2011 (4) SCC 454] (Euthanasia case)". 1, Law Street.
Supreme Court of India. 7 March 2011. Retrieved 18 May 2015.
42
Nambiar, Harish (2000-11-20). "Yet Another South Asian Story". chowk. Chowk (blog). Archived
fromthe original on 2010-02-11. Retrieved 2009-10-25.
consequences for her approaching marriage. At the time of the attack, she was engaged to
a doctor at the same hospital43.
On 24 January 2011, Supreme Court established a committee for medical examination of
the patient for learning the issue. A three-member medical panel was established under
the Supreme Court's directive. After examining Shanbaug, the panel concluded that she
met "most of the criteria of being in a permanent vegetative state".Ultimately the Court
dismissed the petition under supervision of law in exceptional circumstances.
However, in its landmark opinion, it allowed passive euthanasia in India44.
While dismissing Pinki Virani's request for Shanbaug's euthanasia, the court laid out rules
for mercy killing. As indicated by these rules, mercy killing includes the withdrawing of
treatment or nourishment that would permit the patient to proceed living 45.The court
additionally prescribed to decriminalize the attempt to suicide by deleting the punishment
prescribed for the same in Indian Penal Code.
On 25 February 2014, while hearing to a PIL recorded by NGO Common Cause, a three-
judge seat of the Supreme Court of India said that the former supposition in the Aruna
Shanubaug case was taking into account a wrong elucidation of the Constitution Bench's
assessment in Gian Kaur v. Condition of Punjab( supra)46. The court likewise discovered
that the the opinion was internally inconsistent on the grounds that despite the fact that it
held that euthanasia can be permitted just by a demonstration of the legislature, it then
continued to judicially build up euthanasia rules. The court alluded the issue to a bigger
Constitution Bench for determination, composition:
“In view of the inconsistent opinions rendered in Aruna Shanbaug (supra) and also
considering the important question of law involved which needs to be reflected in the
light of social, legal, medical and constitutional perspective, it becomes extremely
important to have a clear enunciation of law. Thus, in our cogent opinion, the question of
law involved requires careful consideration by a Constitution Bench of this Court for the
benefit of humanity as a whole”47.
43
"Rebirth for Aruna, say joyous Mumbai hospital staff". Deccan Herald. March 7, 2011.
44
 "India joins select nations in legalising "passive euthanasia"". The Hindu. 7 March 2011.
45
"India's Supreme Court lays out euthanasia guidelines". LA Times. 8 March 2011. Retrieved8
March 2011.
46
1996 (2) SCC 648 : AIR 1996 SC 946.
47
"Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India – (2014) 5 SCC 338 [Euthanasia reference to
Constitution Bench]". 1, Law Street. Supreme Court of India. 24 February 2014. Retrieved 18 May 2015.
On 7 March 2011 the Supreme Court of India legalized passive euthanasia by means of
the withdrawal of life support to patients in permanent vegetative state48. However, forms
of Active euthanasia, including the administration of lethal compounds, are still
considered illegal.
A couple of days before her passing, Shanbaug was determined to have pneumonia. She
was moved to the therapeutic emergency unit of the clinic and put on a ventilator. She
died on the morning of 18 May 201549. Her memorial service was performed by the
doctor's facility medical caretakers and other staff individuals.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA

The Law Commission had recommended repeal of Section 309 in its 42nd report 50
submitted in 1971. The IPC (Amendment) Bill, 1978 passed by the Rajya Sabha, but
before it could be passed by the Lok Sabha, the Lok Sabha was dissolved and the bill
lapsed. The Commission then submitted its 156th Report in 1997 after the Gian Kaur
judgment, recommending retention of section 309.
The law panel, in its 210th report51submitted in 2008, had noted that attempt to suicide
may be regarded more as a manifestation of a diseased condition of mind, deserving
treatment and care rather than punishment, and accordingly recommended to the
government to initiate the process for repeal of the "anachronistic" Section 309.However,
no less than five states — Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, Punjab and Sikkim —
communicated reservations against the move to de-criminalize the attempt to suicide.
However, on 10th December 2015 a decision52 was taken by the Union Home Ministry to
Decriminalize attempt to suicide (Section 309) after 20th Law Commission, 18 states and
4 Union territories backed the recommendation of the Law Commission of India in this
regard. Also, Cabinet note on the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill has already been

48
"Aruna Shanbaug case: SC allows passive euthanasia in path-breaking judgment". The Times of India. 7
March 2011. Retrieved 7 March 2011.
49
"1973 Sexual Assault Victim Aruna Shanbaug passes away in Mumbai". news.biharprabha.com. 18 May
2015. Retrieved 18 May 2015.
50
http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/1-50/Report42.pdf.,
51
http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/report210.pdf.,
52
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/government-to-decriminalise-attempted-
suicide/article6680203.ece.
circulated by the Union home ministry among other ministries such as law and
health.Keeping in view the responses from the states/ UT’s, it has been decided to delete
Section 309 of IPC from the statute book.
The Supreme Court in 2011 encouraged the legislature to do likewise; and the Law
Commission, as right on time as 1971, had required the nullification of Section 309 of the
IPC. The administration's choice was long past due, however no less welcome for that.

ARGUMENTS FOR LEGALIZING EUTHANASIA

Euthanasia has been a subject for civil argument since quite a while i.e. whether it ought
to be permitted or not. In recent scenario, the discussion is in regards to active euthanasia
rather than passive euthanasia. The question is with respect to the irreconcilable
situations: the interest of the society and that of the person. Any contention on the
subject typically leads to framing of unique inquiries regarding ethical quality and
flexibility of choice and opinion.The arguments for legalizing euthanasia are -

1.Euthanasia gives an approach to ease the terribly amazing torment and suffering of a
person. It provides relief to the individuals in critical condition from a waiting death. It
not just remembers the agonizing torment of a patient additionally assuages the relatives
of a patient from the mental distress. Its point is selfless and helpful as it is a
demonstration of painless killing to those persons who are experiencing agonizing and
hopeless infections. Thus, the rationale behind this is to help instead of mischief.

Another vital point on which the supporters of euthanasia accentuate is that a ton of
restorative facilities in which a great deal of sum are being spent on these patients which
are regardless going to die. Our obligation is towards the patient as well as to the families
who look to us for passionate backing and levelheaded choices to dodge pointless
enthusiastic and monetary weights. In the event that one can take his life to spare others,
a seriously sick individual ought to be ethically supported in taking his life to stay away
from unnecessary agony. In the event that a man has no obligations to perform, either to
himself or to others when he is in critical condition, he may choose to end his life and
mitigate himself from the agony of living and others from the weight of taking care of
him. Area 309 0f IPC couldn't have been expected to include this sort of death as
"Suicide" inside of it.

Supporters of euthanasia contend that society is committed to recognize the privileges of

patients and to regard the choices of the individuals who choose euthanasia. Euthanasia
regards the singular's entitlement to self-determination or his entitlement to protection.
Obstruction with that right must be advocated on the off chance that it is to ensure crucial
social qualities, which is not the situation where patients suffering unbearably toward the
end of their lives demand killing when no choices exist. Not permitting killing would boil
down to driving individuals to endure without wanting to, which would be merciless and
a nullification of their human rights and nobility.

Euthanasia is not immoral. For something to be immoral, it would need to disregard

moral laws or standards. The protection of life is, in any case, subject to the self-decided
decision of the individual and not the decision of the doctor. For a doctor to deny the
individual his entitlement to die when under extraordinary agony and enduring is viably
compelling them to carry on with an existence without what they accept is their nobility,
an existence of anguish and eventual death(on account of critically ill patients).
Euthanasia encourages the decision making it indeed the merciful decision and thoughtful
to that individual's poise.

The supporters contends that it ought to be permitted keeping in view the way that the life
of a man is taken away by his own assent. As per the supporters of euthanasia the choice
of the patients ought to be acknowledged. On the off chance that then again we measure
the social qualities with the individual intrigue then we will unmistakably see that here
the enthusiasm of the individual will exceed the enthusiasm of the general public. The
general public goes for enthusiasm of the people rather it is made with the reason for
guaranteeing an honorable and a tranquil life to all. Presently if the person who is under
agonizing agony is not ready to choose for himself then it clearly will hamper his
advantage. All things considered it will most likely be an invalidation of his respect and
human rights. With respect to civil argument from lawful perspective, Article 21 plainly
accommodates living with pride.

Article 21 of our Constitution unmistakably accommodates living with pride. A man has a
privilege to carry on with an existence with in any event least respect and if that standard
is falling underneath that base level then a man ought to be given a privilege to end his
life. Supporters of euthanasia additionally call attention to the way that as inactive killing
has been permitted, comparatively active euthanasia should likewise be permitted. A
patient will wish to end his life just in instances of extreme misery and would want to
pass on an easy demise as opposed to carrying on with a hopeless existence with that
distress and enduring. Accordingly, from a moral point of perspective it will be
better to permit the tolerant death effortlessly when regardless he realizes that he is
going to die his to his terminal disease.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, there are still heavy discussions revolving around the topic of
euthanasia.After the Gian Kaur's case53, suicide has get to be unlawful as such, yet the
same couldn't be said for euthanasia. As of late the judgment of our Supreme Court in
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India54 legitimized the passive euthanasia and
observed that it is permissible under supervision of law in uncommon circumstances yet
active euthanasia is not allowed under the law.
In a concluding note, the author would like to say that the right to have one's life
terminated at will is subject to social, ethical, and legal strictures. 
The question regarding legalizing euthanasia is a subjective one which depends more
upon the case and the circumstances.
However, the author is of the view that voluntary euthanasia ought to be permitted in
India and that the governing body ought to venture in and make a unique law managing
euthanasia. So we require a law to sanction euthanasia with sufficient protections. The
proposals set down in the Reports of Law Commission of India and rules given in the
53
1996 (2) SCC 648 : AIR 1996 SC 946.
54
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, 2011(3) SCALE 298 :MANU/SC/0176/2011.
Aruna's case are to be thought seriously about.
Furthermore, various activists and lawyers have welcomed the government's decision to
strike off Section 309, which criminalizes any attempt to commit suicide, from the Indian
Penal Code on the recommendation of the Law Commission of India as long pending
and justified.