PROJECT Anjalidora2

PROJECT ON ANALYSIS OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELATION TO
RIGHT TO DIE IN INDIA
SUBMITTED BY: - ANJALI DORA

BATCH: - BBA.LLB(H)
REG.NO: -2041801011
SESSION: - 2020-2025
GUIDED BY: - DR SAK AZAD SIR
SOA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LAW (SNIL)
SIKSHA “O” ANUSANDHAN DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY
BHUBANESWAR, ODISHA
DECLARATION
I, ANJALI DORA, a student of BBALLB (H) of SOA National Institute of law (SNIL) , Siksha
‘o’ Anusandhan Deemed to be university , Bhubneswar , Odisha , does hereby declared that the
project work titled – “ Project on AN ANALYSIS OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELATION
TO RIGHT TO DIE IN INDIA” have given the original and authentic data , information and
maintained full confidentially to the best of my knowledge in the analysis of project work and case
and that no part of this information has been used for any other assignment but for the partial of
the requirement towards the completion of the said course.
ANJALI DORA
BBA LLB
2041801011
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I, ANJALI DORA student of SOA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LAW, Department of

Law , 5th semester , BBALLB (H) do hereby acknowledge my gratefulness towards all the persons
who are associated in the completion of this project .
First of all I would like to pay thanks to our respected teacher professor. DR SAK AZAD
SIR as well as our dean who has chosen me for this topic “Project on on AN ANALYSIS OF
JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELATION TO RIGHT TO DIE IN INDIA ” and also provided me
with the knowledge, inspiration and information. It would not be possible for me to complete the
project without his sincere and affectionate help. Lastly, I want to pay thanks to my parents and
friends who have help some extents to me in the completion of this project.
DATE :20/12/22 NAME- ANJALI DORA

PREFACE
It gave me immense pleasure to write a preface on my project on topic “ project on AN

ANALYSIS OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELATION TO RIGHT TO DIE IN INDIA” .
I have decided the assigned project work into four chapters;
In first I have introduced the subject.
In the second chapter, I have mentioned the legislative provisions.
In third chapter, it is mentioned the judicial analysis regarding the subject.
In the fourth chapter, the conclusion with appraisal and suggestions are mentioned. I have tried my
best to the work on this project. The project work is well researched instead of searching in various
sites and preferring various materials. I have tried my best to omit the errors but still if there is
any, then, it will be deeply regretted and the feedbacks are mostly humbly welcomed.
ANJALI DORA
BBALLB (H)
CONTENTS
TOPIC
1. INTRODUCTION
2. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
3. JUDICIAL ANALYSIS
4. APPRASIAL AND SUGGESTION
5. REFERENCES (BIBLIOGRAPHY)
CHAPTER - 1
INTRODUCTION: -
“Never to be born is best, ancient writers say;
Never to have drawn the breath of life, never to
have looked into the eye of day; The second best’s a
swift goodnight and quickly turn”.
"Euthanasia...is simply to be able to die with dignity at a moment when life is devoid of it. "
~ Marya Mannes.
Survival instinct is the strongest instinct among all living creatures. It is the process of self
preservation by prevention against any harm or injury. But in the life of humans, situations may
arise when choosing death over life not only becomes a choice to be opted but it appears as an
easy way to deal with the current situation. The sufferer himself, his family members and medical
science would be helpless due to their medical limitations. Of course, every decision to end one's
own life is not justified but at the same time each choice to opt death is also not morally wrong.
Along with the moral police, we have the law and order system that distinguishes between the
above situation. Life is the most precious gift anyone can get. But can you believe that life is a
curse for some people! All the people of the world run by the rule of nature. Nature determines
what we will do next and when it will happen. But sometimes nature seems to be cruel, it seems
to act out of the book. In the words of American writer Stewart Alsop “A dying man needs to die,
as a sleepy man needs to sleep, and there comes a time when it is wrong, as well as useless, to
resist”. To be more specific where everyone is running after life then there are some people who
are fighting for their right to die. The process is named “Euthanasia” worldwide. Euthanasia, also
known as assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide (PAS) , doctor-assisted dying (suicide), and
more loosely termed mercy killing, means to take a deliberate action with the express intention of
ending a life to relieve from unbearable sufferings. Francis Bacon first used the word euthanasia
in 17th century where he referred it an easy, painless, happy death and during that time it was a
‘physician’s responsibility to alleviate the physical sufferings of the body’. We know that If
someone take the life of his or her own hand then we simply call it suicide but a terminally ill or
incurable deceased person who is suffering painful diseases like Cancer or AIDS or Ebola or
Leukemia etc., then through his or her request if a physician or doctor end his or her life then we
may call it euthanasia which is mostly used in medical content. Many people believe euthanasia
as the practice of ending a life in a painless manner. Many disagree with this interpretation, because
it needs to include a reference to intractable suffering. Euthanasia or assisted suicide and
sometimes both have been legalized in a few countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg
and Switzerland and states. In all jurisdictions, laws and safeguards were put in place to prevent
abuse and misuse of these practices.
Different Types of Euthanasia and Meaning:
There are different types of euthanasia emerged from different aspects. They are discussed below:
❖ First category is in accordance with the consent of the patient. It can be categorized in this
three:
i. Voluntary: That kind of Euthanasia which are executed with the consent of the
patient is termed as voluntary euthanasia. This kind of euthanasia means
painlessly putting individuals to death for merciful reasons, as when a doctor
administer a lethal dose of medication to a patient.
ii. Involuntary: Euthanasia conducted against the will of the patient is termed
involuntary euthanasia. This means the killing of a person, supposedly in that
person’s own interests, in disregard of that person’s own view or that person,
might be killed without taking the trouble to find out their view. Examples
include euthanasia of the coma patient.
iii. Non-voluntary: That kind of euthanasia which is conducted when the consent
of the patient is absent is termed as non-voluntary euthanasia. Examples include
child euthanasia. If the patient is incapable of making a decision then a person
can give proxy on behalf of the patient or given any advance directives, as he
may not have an opportunity to do so and left no such living will then we can
call it non-voluntary euthanasia where most of the time family members make
the decision.
Voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia can all be further divided into two variants:
i. Passive: A mode of ending life in which a physician is given an option not

to prescribe futile treatments for the hopelessly ill patient.
ii. Active: Active euthanasia means the use of lethal substances or forces,
such as administering a lethal injection, to kill and is the most controversial
means.
CHAPTER-II
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS-
The Right to die is a concept which is based on the opinion that a human being is entitled to make
any decisions about ending his or her life (this also includes undergoing voluntary euthanasia).
Possession of this right is often understood to mean that a person with a terminal illness, or without
the will to continue living, should be allowed to end their own life or to decline life-prolonging
treatment. The primary question that arises is whether people should have the right to die and what
may be the principle justifying such right.
Right to life is a basic natural right of human beings. In India, it is a fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 21 that is Part-III of the Constitution of India. Article 21 states that:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law”
This fundamental right confers an obligation on the state to ensure good quality of life, livelihood,
liberty and a dignified life to the people, both citizens and otherwise.
This right to life has been interpreted by the Indian judiciary in various ways so as to include within
its purview several new rights such as the right to live with human dignity, right to livelihood,
right to shelter, right to privacy, right to food, right to education, right to get pollution free air and
water and some other rights which are quite essential to improve the condition of the life of the
people, i.e. – for the true enjoyment of the right to life.
The question that right to life can include within its ambit the right not to live or the right to die is
one that has been debated in several cases. Death can be defined as the termination of life. Death
can be categorized basically into two kinds – (i) natural and (ii) unnatural death. It can be caused
by the action as well as the inaction of a person. Causing the extinction of a life unnaturally by the
action of oneself over himself or over someone else is morally bad as well as legally punishable.
Every living being in this world wants to live a long life and by every possible means wants to
increase the longevity of their lives and promoting end of such life is not the intended result of this
right.
For a common man, when life becomes far more painful and unbearable than death, then it is very
normal for him to desire death. This voluntary embracing of death is known as euthanasia or mercy
killing. Euthanasia is also termed as ‘dayamaran’. Some people as the great saints or heroic
persons embrace ‘echchamaran’ or willful death, when they feel that they have achieved the
purpose of their lives. There are different types of voluntary deaths in our country like the ‘sati’,
‘johars’, ‘samadhi’, ‘prayopaveshan’ (starving to death) etc.
Passive euthanasia is legal in India. On march 7, the Supreme Court legalized euthanasia by
means of retreating life support of those patients who are in a permanent vegetative state (PVS).
This verdict regarding legalizing euthanasia was a part of the judgment in the prominent case
involving Aruna shanbaug, who has been in a vegetative state 37 years in King Memorial
Hospital (KMH). The High Court overruled active euthanasia by means of fatal injections. As
there are no laws regulating euthanasia in India the court stated that its pronouncement will be
considered as the law of the land until the Indian parliament enact appropriate law regarding the
same. Active euthanasia, including the supervision of legal combinations for the purpose of
ending life is considered illegal in India.
As there are no laws regarding euthanasia, the Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines
which are considered as law unless and until parliament passes legislations. The following are the
guidelines:
• A decision has to be taken to discontinue life support either by the parents or the spouse
or other close relatives, or in the absence of any of them, such a decision can be taken
even be taken even by a person or a body of person acting as a friend. It can also be taken
by the doctors attending the patients. However, the decision should be taken bona fide in
the best interest of the patients.
• Even if the decision is taken by near relatives or doctors or next friend to withdraw life
support, such a decision requires approval from the High Court concerned.
• When such an application is filed the Chief Justice of should forthwith constitute a bench
of at least two judges who should decide to grant approval or not. The bench will nominate
a committee of three reputed doctors, who will give report regarding the condition of the
patient. Before giving the verdict a notice regarding the report should be given to the close
relatives and the State. After hearing the parties, the High Court can give its verdict.
In the words of Pipel and Amsel “Contemporary proponents of ‘rational suicide’ or the ‘right to
die’ usually demand by ‘rationality’ that the decision to kill oneself be both the autonomous choice
of the agent desired by liberals, and ‘a best option under the circumstances’ choice desired by the
stoics or utilitarian, as well as other natural conditions such as the choice being stable, not an
impulsive decision, not due to mental illness, achieved after due deliberation, etc.
The history of the legality of right to die in India starts from the case of State v. Sanjay
Kumar Bhatia where the Delhi High Court criticized section 309 of IPC as an ‘anachronism and
a paradox’ and then is followed by varied views of different High Courts on section 309 of IPC.
In the case of Naresh Marotrao Sakhre v. Union of India the court observed the difference
between Euthanasia and suicide. It was discussed that Suicide was an act of self-destruction, to
terminate one’s own life without the aid or assistance of any other human agency whereas
euthanasia being different as it involves the intervention of a human agency to end one’s life.
This mercy killing is from nowhere covered in section 309 of Indian Penal code which states
that;
“Attempt to commit suicide.—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]”
In P. Rathinam v. Union of India the court, giving relief to the misers attempting suicide, section
309 was held to be irrational and deserves to be effaced from the statute book to humanize our
penal laws. It attempts in doubly punishing the man who is tremendous pain and would be
undergoing ignominy because of failure to commit suicide.
Soon, this was also overruled in the case of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab and it was held that
right to life does not include right to die or the right to be killed. It was further held that right to
life was a natural right embodied in Article 21, but suicide was unnatural termination or
extinction of life and therefore, ‘incompatible and inconsistent’ with the concept of the right to
life. The right to life includes right to live with human dignity would mean the existence of such
a right up to the end of natural life. However, the court appears to approve passive euthanasia by
holding that one may have the right to die with dignity as a part of the right to live with dignity.
Thus, any form involving unnatural termination of life has been held to be illegal until the case
of Aruna Shanbaug and the recent case filed by the NGO common cause where the legality of
the issue was re-discussed and on 9th March 2018 in the case of Common Cause (A Registered
Society) v. Union of India a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court recognized and gave sanction
to passive euthanasia and living will/ advance directive. The implication of this is that from now
Right to Die with Dignity is a Fundamental Right. The judgment was delivered by a Bench
comprising of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Justice A.K. Sikri, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar,
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Ashok Bhushan. The matter was referred to it by a three-
Judge bench, which held that the Constitution Bench in the case of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab,
had not ruled upon the validity of active or passive Euthanasia, even though the bench had ruled
that Right to Live with Dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India was inclusive of the
right to die with dignity.
The Three-Judge Bench then noted that the judgment pronounced in Aruna Shanbaug v Union of
India is based upon a wrong preposition that the Constitution Bench in the case of Gian Kaur v
State of Punjab had upheld passive euthanasia. However, the Five-Judge Bench in the case
of Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India and Another has now unanimously held
that the Two-Judge Bench in the case of Aruna Shanbaug had wrongly ruled that passive
euthanasia can be made lawful only by legislation through an erroneous interpretation of the
judgment in Gian Kaur case. The Judges in their judgment have also laid down the procedure for
a “Living Will” or an “Advance Directive” through which terminally ill people or those with
deteriorating health can choose not to remain in a vegetative state with life support system if they
go into a state when it will not be possible for them to express their wishes.
At the present stage, regarding euthanasia, the argument largely rotates around active euthanasia
and not passive euthanasia.
• Sanctity of life:- Followers of euthanasia claim that society is obliged to recognize the
right of the patient and reverence the resolution of those who choose euthanasia. It is also
argued that euthanasia venerate individual right of self-resolve or his right to privacy.
Interference is only vindicated if it is to defend crucial social values, which is not the case
where patient suffering intolerably at the end of their lives appeal euthanasia when no
substitutes exist. Not permitting euthanasia would come down to compelling people to
undergo the pain against their will, which would be harsh and a annulment of their human
rights and self-esteem.
• Right to die: Every person has a right to live with at least a slightest dignity and when the
state of his existence falls below even that minimum level then he must be allowed to end
such twisted survival. In such cases liberate from distress (rather than conserving life)
should. Be principal objective of health care suppliers.
• Individual interest: Followers of active euthanasia contend that since society has
recognized a patient’s right to passive euthanasia (for example, by legally identifying
refusal of life- sustaining treatment), active euthanasia should likewise be allowed. When
arguing on behalf of legalizing active euthanasia, proponents emphasize circumstances in
which a condition has become overpoweringly arduous for the patient, pain management
for the patient is insufficient, and only death seems capable of bringing liberation.
Moreover, in the light of growing pressure on hospitals and medical facilities, it is argued
that the same facilities should be used for the assistance of other patients who have a better
chance of retrieval and to whom they said amenities would of grander value. Thus, the
arguments runs when one has to choose between a patient beyond retrieval and one who
must be saved, the latter should be favoured than former.
• It makes economic sense:- Most people would be shocked to think economics factored
into their life-or-death decisions, and rightly so. However, there’s no getting around how
absurdly expensive end-of-life care is in America: According to CNN, one in every four
Medicare dollars spent goes to the five percent of beneficiaries in the last year of their life.
The upshot of this is often crippling debt for the families of terminally ill patients, with the
care of a single individual at the end of their life costing an estimated $39,000. For 40
percent of households, the bill exceeds their financial assets.
This might be acceptable if end-of-life care was worth the money, but it’s objectively not.
Doctors will readily attest to the ability of modern medicine to slightly prolong life—at the
cost of totally destroying its quality. If you can’t be bothered to read that last link, I’ll sum
it up here: End-of-life care is often brutal, nasty, traumatic, and very expensive, putting
patients through long stretches of unnecessary suffering just to give them an extra month
or two. And when the terminally ill patient undergoing these nasty, expensive treatments
has repeatedly insisted that they’d rather be dead, you have to start wondering who all this
expenditure is really benefiting.
It is not the case of the followers of euthanasia that this right is not capable of mistreatment. Rather
they point out that almost any individual liberty involves some risk of abuse and argue that such
risk can be kept to a lowest by using proper legal precautions. Moreover, merely because the risk
of exploitation of a right exists is no purpose to repudiate a person the right itself.
The Honorable Supreme Court of India in, Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India
had made a clear distinction between Active and Passive Euthanasia. In Active euthanasia
something is done to end the life of the patient in sleep, thus it amounts to killing a person by
positive action in order to end the suffering of a person in a state of a terminal illness. It is
considered to be a crime all over the world except where permitted by legislation. In India too,
active euthanasia is illegal and a crime under Section 302 or 304 of the IPC. Physician-assisted
suicide is a crime under Section 306 IPC (abetment to suicide). Passive euthanasia in another
hand, involves the withholding of medical treatment or withholding life support system for the
continuance of life e.g., withholding of antibiotic where without doing it, the patient is likely to
die or removing the heart-lung machine from a patient in a coma. Passive euthanasia is legal
even without legislation provided certain conditions and safeguards are maintained. The core
point of distinction between active and passive euthanasia as noted by the Supreme Court is that
in active euthanasia, something is done to end the patient‟s life while in passive euthanasia,
something is not done that would have preserved the patient‟s life. To quote the words of learned
Judge in Aruna‟s case, in passive euthanasia, “the doctors are not actively killing anyone; they
are simply not saving him”. The Court graphically said “while we usually applaud someone who
saves another person‟s life, we do not normally condemn someone for failing to do so”. The
Supreme Court pointed out that according to the proponents of Euthanasia, while we can debate
whether active euthanasia should be legal, there cannot be any doubt about passive euthanasia as
“you cannot prosecute someone for failing to save a life”. Again Passive euthanasia is further
divided into voluntary and non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is where the consent is taken
from the patient. And in non-voluntary euthanasia, the consent is unavailable on account of the
condition of the patient for example, when he is in a comma.
CHAPTER III
JUDICIAL ANALYSIS-
The concept of Right to die is not a new notion in the global world. The human society has been
witnessing it from the very previous ages. The history has seen it in the times of Roman and
Greek civilization where in some cases it was seen that people used to help others to put them to
death if needed. We can see it in the case of Sparta, a Greek city where child who were born with
some disability were killed. The concept of voluntary euthanasia where an individual with his
own consent use to practice euthanasia in the situation of illness was a notion which was
performed in various ancient culture by the people of older age group. In various holy books and
texts like the holy Bible, the holy Koran and the Rig Veda, there is mention of the concept of
suicide or self-annihilation.
When we talk about India, we can witness various examples from the Vedic Age where people
have applied their right to die and committed suicide on the basis of religious foundation. The
same is evident in the case of Mahabharata and the Ramayana. Among Hindu’s there is
difference of perspective present in the case of euthanasia. The one perspective says that the
doctors who provide euthanasia, on the very first hand, should not accept such requests of the
patient as it will lead to the unnatural death of the person separating his soul and body. Due to
this act, both the doctors and the patient karma will get harmed. Another set of people believe
that the euthanasia should not be practiced as it is opposite to the concept of ahimsa which works
on the principle of not killing anyone. However, there are third sects of Hindus who believe in
the practice of euthanasia as they consider ending someone’s life who is in pain and trouble is a
moral obligation of a person and by doing this an individual is accomplishing a good deed.
In the case of Muslims, they do not believe in the concept of euthanasia. They believe that
human and their life is very pious as it has been provided by the Allah and therefore only Allah
has the right to take away someone’s life. The interference of humans is not allowed in this. The
same is believed by mostly Christians. The reasoning which is mostly given by them is that God
has gifted human with life and the cycle of birth and dying is made by God and to disturb it will
lead to imbalance in this global world. Hence, whoever be the person and whatever be the
situation, a human is not allowed to take someone else life.
In the case of Sikh, their thoughts are mostly extracted from their holy scripture named Guru
Granth Sahib and the Rehat Maryada which talks about code of conduct of Sikhs. The concept of
suicide and euthanasia was also denied by Sikhs as they also came forth with the same reasoning
that it is obtrusion in the plan of God. They believe that pleasure and pain are part of the life that
God has given them and they should make the best use of it instead of protesting.
Euthanasia as a crime
One question which always strikes my mind is why euthanasia was made illegal in various
countries. The reason which was possibly thought by many countries earlier was that there is no
difference between euthanasia and murder. However, there are certain points which make
euthanasia and murder different from each other.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EUTHANASIA AND MURDER
The murder can be defined as an act of killing a person without his consent unlawfully with the
wrong motive. However, in the case of euthanasia which is closely related to mercy killing, a
person is killed with his consent or with the consent of his legal guardian with the positive
intention to relieve him from the permanent illness and suffering and end his life with dignity.
Though the process is same in both the acts i.e., a person is killed by another person with any
certain object but the major difference which lies between murder and giving euthanasia is the
intention of the person. In the case of involuntary euthanasia, some people consider it as a
murder because the willful consent of the person is not present in that case and thus it is treated
like murder.
After the clear distinction between murder and euthanasia, we need to get deeper to see the
difference between euthanasia and suicide as they both vary largely in their meanings.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EUTHANASIA AND SUICIDE
A number of people commit the mistake of treating euthanasia and suicide as the same thing but
there exists the clear distinction between their meanings. According to Merriam Webster, we can
define suicide as the act or an instance of taking one’s own life voluntarily and intentionally.
Thus, suicide in general can be understood as the ending your life deliberately with self help for
several causes like depression, relationship problems, not cracking a job, etc. While considering
euthanasia, we can see that it has not been defined by any religion in their book but since it is
closely connected with suicide, it can be assumed that it is also prohibited by various religions.
In India, the legal system punishes an individual on the premise of intentions. Indian Penal
system is based on a very famous maxim “Actus non facit reum nisi men sit rea” which means
An act does not make one guilty unless there is a criminal intent. Thus if an individual commits
or omits an act without the intention of crime then it is not punishable under the Indian Penal
Code.
In the matter of euthanasia, if we make use of above maxim, it can be seen that in this case an
individual is himself giving consent to kill her and thus the person killing him cannot be made
liable for commission of any offence. Now, the important question which arises in front of us is
whether giving consent to kill an individual leaves the culprit from any sort of criminal liability.
In case where people answer it in a positive manner then euthanasia does not become an offence.
In the case of India, the law here is very lucid in this matter. The person providing euthanasia
may assert that the other person gave his consent and thus he is not liable for any offence or the
defense of “volenti non fit injuria” can be taken by him.
In India, the Section 87 of the Indian Penal Code talks about consent and without any ambiguity
it says that one cannot allege consent as a defense in the situations where it is originated with the
motive to kill someone or grievously hurt him. In the very famous case of Maruti Shripati
Dubal, the honorable Bombay HC tried to lay down a clear difference between the two concepts
of suicide and euthanasia. As stated by the court, when an individual wants to end’s his life by an
act done by himself only without the intervention of other people, it is known as suicide whereas
in the matter of euthanasia, intrusion of other human is necessary to finish one’s life. Thus one
can say that suicide and euthanasia does not come under same periphery. There was another
case where the Bombay HC reiterated the same. Therefore we can say that suicide is not similar
to mercy killing. These are two different notions with respect to facts and legality.
There is one another term which needs to be distinguished with euthanasia, i.e., assisted
suicide. The term “assisted suicide” can be explained as an act of assistance to other person by
providing some details, direction and objects to end his life with the soul intention that he will
use it for the purpose of euthanasia. We can draw the differentiation between assisted suicide and
the term active euthanasia as in the prior case an individual himself take steps to end his own life
with the assistance of persons in medical field. But in the case of latter one, the doctor is the one
who leads the person to the death. In this situation the act is known as “doctor assisted
suicide”. In the case of Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab, it was unmistakably laid down by the
apex court that both assisted suicide and euthanasia are prohibited or illegitimate in the
nation. While declaring this decision, the honorable court took the reference of Airedale case in
which the House of Lords have agreed with the argument that on the premise of well informed
medical belief, the removal of systems which support life of a person is legitimate as this would
be allowed to only those patients who are irrecoverable.
Euthanasia and Indian Law

The life of a person is of the prime importance in India. The Article 21 which talks about the
right to life in Indian Constitution is the one article which has been interpreted several times by
the judges of various courts in different cases. The citizens of the nation have received this right
from birth and it cannot be taken away from them. As it was mentioned earlier in the article that
right to die does not come under the periphery of Article 21. However, this question for the first
time came up in the case of State of Maharashta vs. M.S.Dubal. In this case, the court held that
right to die is included in right to life under Article 21. In consequence of this, Section 309 of
IPC was removed from the code. The reason that judges gave was that the willingness to end
one’s life is not something unnatural, though it is rarely seen. The very decision was also
supported in the case of P. Rathiman vs. Union of India. But, this decision was changed later on
in the case of Gian Kaur v State of Punjab. In this case, a bench of five judges gave judgment
that the right to die does not come under the ambit of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It was
said that a person’s right to live is a natural right whereas right to die comes under the unnatural
part of life and thus it can’t come under the ambit of natural rights.
In the 196th report of the Indian Law Commission, this issue was discussed in broad way. One of
the important challenge before the aforesaid commission was whether to continue or remove the
treatment of the patients who are at last stage. There were various other issues which were dealt
by Law Commission such as which patients are proficient, what does informed decision mean,
what is best for the patient and most important question that on an omission of an act by the
doctor, could the patient or his family members including some close friends can go to a court
for its lawfulness and if yes then can this decision be held binding in upcoming proceedings, etc.
In the light of above questions, it was recommended by the Law commission that they should
have a law which safeguards patient who are at the last stage of illness denying all the treatment
offered including externally provided nutrition and water. It was said that though the family and
close ones of the patient would be approached by the doctors but then the ultimate decision is in
the hands of doctors to make the best decision with the consultation of other experts in
accordance with the guidelines given by the Medical Council of India. However, the physician
who is treating the patient is not having the freedom to choose the specialist of his choice. It was
the perspective of Law Commission that to reduce the number of grievances regarding the
exploitation of the management, it was important to form a bench of experts who are chosen and
certified by an acknowledged public authority and approved by the Government of the nation.
Further the commission ordered that a doctor should make the note in which he notes down the
denial by the patient to take the treatment, in the matter of (a) victim who is fit or unfit (b) a
patient who is fit (made or made not the informed decision), it is the duty of the physician to
make a decision regarding the continuance, stop or pause of the treatment and he should mention
all these things in his notes along with reasoning behind every decision, and opinions of the
specialist and whether he informed the victim or his close ones about the decision which was
taken for the patients betterment. In the situation that the decision of the doctor is not supported
by the family members, the close ones can approach the honorable court of the respective state
and by that time the doctor won’t execute his decision till the final verdict comes from the court.
Among the most progressive provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, was that it
decriminalised attempt to suicide. It recognised the role of “severe stress” in suicidal persons. By
extension, a person who dies by suicide is also under “severe stress”. A related debate has begun in
the Sushant Singh Rajput case about the feasibility of the abetment to suicide charge against Rhea
Chakraborty if Sushant was under “severe stress” as the Act notes.
Now a matter is in the Supreme Court pointing out a practical loophole left by the Mental
Healthcare Act.
Subsection-1 of Section 115 of The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, states: (1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in section 309 of the Indian Penal Code any person who attempts to commit
suicide shall be presumed, unless proved otherwise, to have severe stress and shall not be tried and
punished under the said Code. Meanwhile,
here is Section 309 in The Indian Penal Code. It states: Whoever attempts to commit suicide and
does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall he punished with simple imprisonment
for a term which may extend to one year [or with fine, or with both].
Arguments against euthanasia

While talking about euthanasia and seeing laws related to it in various countries, we came to
know that in some countries it is legal while in some it is illegal. The question which arises here
is that what is the point which made people to diverse their opinion with respect to euthanasia.
Therefore in this chapter we will study about the advantages and disadvantages of euthanasia.
Reasons for declaring euthanasia legal

From Lord Ram to Vinoba Bhave’s determination to fast till they die, the sub-continent India has
witnessed existence of euthanasia at different period of time. Today also a debate is going on
with emphasis more towards active euthanasia than passive. The point of contention is mainly
the conflict between the benefit of an individual and the interest of society. Given below are
some points regarding the legalization of euthanasia. They are-
1. One set of people have opinion that euthanasia should be legalized in the country as
the patient is killed with his own consent and their decision should be respected. If we
put an individual interest and the interest of society on parallel, the individual interest
would weigh more than the other as an individual forms the society. Thus, it is an
obligation for the society to guarantee a peaceful life for a person. In case, a person is
not able to convey his consent then it can hinder his dignity. In that case we need to
look at Article 21 which talks about living our life with dignity. If the dignity of a
patient is getting below minimum then it is right to end their life.
2. It is argued by the advocates of active euthanasia that like passive euthanasia which is
legal in India, an active euthanasia should also be legalized. They say that situations
occur for patients when they feel this life as burden on them and want to end it. In this
situation it is better to end their life as soon as possible. This will not only let the
patient to die with dignity but it will also save the medical facilities of the hospital
which they can utilize in saving life of a patient who is recoverable and want to live
their life.
3. Euthanasia works as an immediate antidote for the terminally ill patients as it saves
them from an insufferable pain. Through this they can die with peace without any pain
and mental suffering. Thus it supports them than any suffering.
4. The advocates of euthanasia give the moral perspective of euthanasia. They argue that
it is better for a patient who is going to die with terminal illness along with unbearable
suffering to die without any pain and peacefully. They also point towards the suffering
of the families of the patient. The families along with patient go through lot of
suffering and financial issues. If by ending the life of a person who is terminally ill
and eventually going to die, we can save the life of a person who wants to live and is
capable for do so, then we should choose to do so.
5. By not allowing euthanasia to the patients who want it and letting them to die with all
the pain and suffering would lead to cruelty and removal of dignity of a person which
is ethically, morally and socially wrong.
Reasons for declaring euthanasia illegal

There are certain countries that haven’t legalized euthanasia. The reason for the same are
mentioned below-
1. The very first argument states that it is against the ethics of medical practitioners. The
role of a doctor and nurse is to cure the patient rather than supporting them to kill
themselves. With the advancement in technology and science, there are various ways
to save a person. Also, the role of psychology is very important in such cases. Thus if
a patient is encouraged to live his life and fulfill their responsibilities they won’t want
to kill themselves. Thus, the path of euthanasia should be made illegal.
2. Another important contention laid by the supporters is that how a person is going to
decide that a patient wants to die or how a patient himself can decide that he should be
dead now. Usually, patients who are in such state and give their consent to die are not
in a stable mental position as they going through lot of pain and mental sufferings. It
is said that consent is accepted only when it is free without any influence which is not
found in the present case. The second contention is that how would one decide that a
close friend or physician is acting in best for the patient. There can be many selfish
motives behind their decision. Thus, legalizing euthanasia would only harm the
patient.
3. The third argument for the same is given that with the coming time it is possible that
government allows the voluntary euthanasia also following the concept of slippery
slope. As passive euthanasia is legalized, there may occur a case where judiciary
permits active euthanasia also and with time this concept would slide down to
permission of all types of euthanasia.
4. If the euthanasia is legalized then it would work as one more way for those people
who are under huge stress and want to end their life. Thus, it may act as fuel to ends
one life.
5. The advocates of illegalizing euthanasia also say that it is against the plan of God. We
suffer happiness and pain because of our karma and if we legalize euthanasia then it
would be reducing the value of a life of a human being.
6. If we would legalize euthanasia then the members of vulnerable class would be most
found in the list of euthanasia. Thus, it would act as a discouraging source for the
people out in global world.
After discussing about both the situations it is difficult to say about the legalization and
illegalization of euthanasia. However, it depends on case to case whether it should be given or
not.
COUNTERARGUMENT OF EUTHANASIA SUPPORTERS
Caregivers burden: ‘Right-to-die’ supporters argue that people who have an incurable,
degenerative, disabling or debilitating condition should be allowed to die in dignity. This
argument is further defended for those, who have chronic debilitating illness even though it is not
terminal such as severe mental illness. Majority of such petitions are filed by the sufferers or
family members or their caretakers. The caregiver's burden is huge and cuts across various
domains such as financial, emotional, time, physical, mental and social. Hence, it is uncommon
to hear requests from the family members of the person with psychiatric illness to give some
poison either to patient or else to them. Coupled with the States inefficiency, apathy and no
investment on health is mockery of the ‘Right to life’.
Refusing care: Right to refuse medical treatment is well recognised in law, including medical
treatment that sustains or prolongs life. For example, a patient suffering from blood cancer can
refuse treatment or deny feeds through nasogastric tube. Recognition of right to refuse treatment
gives a way for passive euthanasia. Many do argue that allowing medical termination of
pregnancy before 16 wk is also a form of active involuntary euthanasia. This issue of mercy
killing of deformed babies has already been in discussion in Holland20.
Right to die: Many patients in a persistent vegetative state or else in chronic illness, do not want
to be a burden on their family members. Euthanasia can be considered as a way to upheld the
‘Right to life’ by honouring ‘Right to die’ with dignity.
Encouraging the organ transplantation: Euthanasia in terminally ill patients provides an

opportunity to advocate for organ donation. This in turn will help many patients with organ
failure waiting for transplantation. Not only euthanasia gives ‘Right to die’ for the terminally ill,
but also ‘Right to life’ for the organ needy patients.
Constitution of India reads ‘right to life’ is in positive direction of protecting life. Hence, there is
an urgent need to fulfil this obligation of ‘Right to life’ by providing ‘food, safe drinking water
and health care’. On the contrary, the state does not own the responsibility of promoting,
protecting and fulfilling the socio-economic rights such as right to food, right to water, right to
education and right to health care, which are basic essential ingredients of right to life. Till date,
most of the States has not done anything to support the terminally ill people by providing for
hospice care.
The Supreme Court judgement to withhold decision on this sensitive issue is a first step towards
a new era of health care in terminally ill patients. The Judgment laid down is to preserve
harmony within a society, when faced with a complex medical, social and legal dilemma. There
is a need to enact a legislation to protect terminally ill patients and also medical practitioners
caring for them as per the recommendation of Law Commission Report-19615. There is also an
urgent need to invest in our health care system, so that poor people suffering from ill health can
access free health care. Investment in health care is not a charity; ‘Right to Health’ is bestowed
under ‘Right to Life’ of our constitution.
LANDMARK CASES ON RIGHT TO DIE-

SMT GIAN KAUR VS THE STATE OF PUNJAB 1996
To give meaning and content to the word 'life' in Article 21, it has been construed as life with
human dignity. Any aspect of life which makes it dignified may be read into it but not that which
extinguishes it and is, therefore, inconsistent with the continued existence of life resulting in
effacing the right itself. The right to die', if any, is inherently inconsistent with the right to life' as
is death' with life'.
Protagonism of euthanasia on the view that existence in persistent vegetative state (PVS) is not a
benefit to the patient of a terminal illness being unrelated to the principle of 'sanctity of life' or
the right to live with dignity' is of no assistance to determine the scope of Article 21 for deciding
whether the guarantee of right to life' therein includes the right to die'. The right to life' including
the right to live with human dignity would mean the existence of such a right upto the end of
natural life. This also includes the right to a dignified life upto the point of death including a
dignified procedure of death. In other words, this may include the right of a dying man to
also die with dignity when his life is ebbing out. But the 'right to die' with dignity at the end of life
is not to be confused or equated with the right to die' an unnatural death curtailing the natural span
of life.
A question may arise, in the context of a dying man, who is, terminally ill or in a persistent
vegetative state that he may be permitted to terminate it by a premature extinction of his life in
those circumstances. This category of cases may fall within the ambit of the 'right to die' with
dignity as a part of right to live with dignity, when death due to termination of natural life is certain
and imminent and the process of natural death has commenced. These are not cases of
extinguishing life but only of accelerating conclusion of the process of natural death which has
already commenced. The debate even in such cases to permit physician assisted termination of life
is inconclusive. It is sufficient to reiterate that the argument to support the view of permitting
termination of life in such cases to reduce the period of suffering during the process of certain
natural death is not available to interpret Article 21 to include therein the right to curtail the natural
span of life.
Article 14 - Is it violated by Section 309, I.P.C. ?
We would now consider the constitutional validity of Section 309 with reference to Article 14 of
the Constitution. In substance, the argument of Shri Ujagar Singh, Shri B.S. Malik and Shri Soli
J. Sobrajee on this point is that it is a monstrous and barbaric provision which violates the equality
clause being discriminatory and arbitrary. It was contended that attempted suicide is not punishable
in any other civilized society and there is a strong opinion against the retention of such a penal
provision which led the Law Commission of India also to recommend its deletion. Shri Sorabjee
contended that the wide amplitude of Article 14 together with the right to live with dignity
included in Article 21, renders Section 309 unconstitutional. It is in this manner, invoking Article
21 limited to life with dignity (not including therein the right to die') that Shri Sorabjee refers
to Article 21 along with Article 14 to assail the validity of Section 309, IPC. The conclusion
reached in P. Rathinam is supported on this ground.
COMMON CAUSE(A REGD SOCIETY) VS UNION OF INDIA 2018
Counter affidavits have been filed by various States. We need not refer to the same in detail.
Suffice it to mention that in certain affidavits, emphasis has been laid on Articles 37, 39 and 47
which require the States to take appropriate steps as envisaged in the said Articles for apposite
governance. That apart, it has been pronouncedly stated that the right to life does not include
the right to die and, in any case, the right to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution means availability of food, shelter and health and does not include
the right to die with dignity. It is asseverated that saving the life is the primary duty of the State
and, therefore, there is necessity for health care. It is also contended that the introduction of
the right to die with dignity as a facet of the right under Article 21 will create a right that the said
constitutional provision does not envisage and further it may have the potential effect to destroy
the said basic right.
Adverting to the concept of euthanasia, the Court observed that protagonism of euthanasia on the
view that existence in persistent vegetative state (PVS) is not a benefit to the patient of terminal
illness being unrelated to the principle of ―sanctity of life‖ or the ―right to live with dignity‖ is
of no assistance to determine the scope of Article 21 for deciding whether the guarantee of
―right to life‖ therein includes the ―right to die‖. The ―right to life‖ including the right to live
with human dignity would mean the existence of such a right up to the end of natural life. The
Constitution Bench further explained that the said conception also includes the right to a dignified
life up to the point of death including a dignified procedure of death or, in other words, it may
include the right of a dying man to also die with dignity when his life is ebbing out. It has been
clarified that the right to die with dignity at the end of life is not to be confused or equated with
the ―right to die‖ an unnatural death curtailing the natural span of life. Thereafter, the Court
proceeded to state:-
After reproducing the said passage, the Court opined thus:-
The desirability of bringing about a change was considered to be the function of the legislature by
enacting a suitable law providing therein adequate safeguards to prevent any possible abuse.‖
At this stage, it is necessary to clear the maze whether the Constitution Bench in Gian Kaur had
accepted what has been held in Airedale. On a careful and anxious reading of Gian Kaur, it is
noticeable that there has been narration, reference and notice of the view taken in Airedale case. It
is also worth noting that the Court was concerned with the constitutional validity of Section
309 IPC that deals with attempt to commit suicide and Section 306 IPC that provides for abetment
to commit suicide. As noted earlier, the Constitution Bench, while distinguishing the case of a
dying man who is terminally ill or in a persistent vegetative state and his termination or premature
extinction of life, observed that the said category of cases may fall within the ambit
of right to die with dignity as a part of right to life with dignity when death due to termination of
natural life is inevitable and imminent and the process of natural death has commenced. The
Constitution Bench further opined that the said cases do not amount to extinguishing the life but
only amount to accelerating the process of natural death which has already commenced and,
thereafter, the Constitution Bench stated that the debate with regard to physician assisted suicide
remains inconclusive. The larger Bench has reiterated that the cases pertaining to premature
extinction of life during the process of certain natural death of patients who are terminally ill or in
persistent vegetative state were of assistance to interpret Article 21 of the Constitution to include
therein the right to curtail the natural span of life. On a seemly understanding of the judgment in
Gian Kaur, we do not find that it has decried euthanasia as a concept. On the contrary, it gives an
indication that in such situations, it is the acceleration of the process of dying which may constitute
a part of right to life with dignity so that the period of suffering is reduced. We are absolutely
conscious that a judgment is not to be construed as a statute but our effort is to understand what
has been really expressed in Gian Kaur. Be it clarified, it is understood and appreciated that there
is a distinction between a positive or overt act to put an end to life by the person living his life and
termination of life so that an individual does not remain in a vegetative state or, for that matter,
when the death is certain because of terminal illness and he remains alive with the artificially
assisted medical system. In Gian Kaur, while dealing with the attempt to commit suicide, the Court
clearly held that when a man commits suicide, he has to undertake certain positive overt acts and
the genesis of those acts cannot be tested to or be included within the protection of the expression
―right to life‖ under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was also observed that a dignified procedure
of death may include the right of a dying man to also die with dignity when the life is ebbing out.
This is how the pronouncement in Gian Kaur has to be understood. It is also not the ratio of the
authority in Gian Kaur that euthanasia has to be introduced only by a legislation. What has been
stated in paragraph 41 of Gian Kaur is what has been understood to have been held in Airedale‘s
case. The Court has neither expressed any independent opinion nor has it approved the said part
or the ratio as stated in Airedale. There has been only a reference to Airedale‘s case and the view
expressed therein as regards legislation. Therefore, the perception in Aruna Shanbaug that the
Constitution Bench has approved the decision in Airedale is not correct. It is also quite clear that
Gian Kaur does not lay down that passive euthanasia can only be thought of or given effect to by
legislation. Appositely understood, it opens an expansive sphere of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Therefore, it can be held without any hesitation that Gian Kaur has neither given any definite
opinion with regard to euthanasia nor has it stated that the same can be conceived of only by a
legislation.
In Gian Kaur (supra), the Constitution Bench indicates acceleration of the conclusion of the
process of death which has commenced and this indication, as observed by us, allows room for
expansion. In the said case, the Court was primarily concerned with the question of constitutional
validity of Sections 306 and 309 of IPC. The Court was conscious of the fact that the debate on
euthanasia was not relevant for deciding the question under consideration. The Court, however, in
no uncertain terms expounded that the word "life" in Article 21 has been construed as life with
human dignity and it takes within its ambit the "right to die with dignity" being part of the "right to
live with dignity". Further, the "right to live with human dignity" would mean existence of such
a right upto the end of natural life which would include the right to live a dignified life upto the
point of death including the dignified procedure of death. While adverting to the situation of a
dying man who is terminally ill or in a persistent vegetative state where he may be permitted to
terminate it by a premature extinction of his life, the Court observed that the said category of cases
may fall within the ambit of "right to die with dignity" as part of the right to live with dignity when
death due to the termination of natural life is certain and imminent and the process of natural death
has commenced, for these are not cases of extinguishing life but only of accelerating the conclusion
of the process of natural death which has already commenced. The sequitur of this exposition is
that there is little doubt that a dying man who is terminally ill or in a persistent vegetative state can
make a choice of premature extinction of his life as being a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution.
If that choice is guaranteed being part of Article 21, there is no necessity of any legislation for
effectuating that fundamental right and more so his natural human right. Indeed, that right cannot
be an absolute right but subject to regulatory measures to be prescribed by a suitable legislation
which, however, must be reasonable restrictions and in the interests of the general public. In the
context of the issue under consideration, we must make it clear that as part of the right to die with
dignity in case of a dying man who is terminally ill or in a persistent vegetative state, only passive
euthanasia would come within the ambit of Article 21 and not the one which would fall within the
description of active euthanasia in which positive steps are taken either by the treating physician
or some other person. That is because the right to die with dignity is an intrinsic facet of Article
21. The concept that has been touched deserves to be concretised, the thought has to be realized.
It has to be viewed from various angles, namely, legal permissibility, social and ethical ethos and
medical values.
NIKHIL SONI VS UNION OF INDIA 2015
That the contents of para (7) of the writ petition are not admitted. It appears that the learned
petitioner has not correctly appreciated the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Smt.Gyan Kaur Vs. State of Punjab (JT 1996(3) SC 339). The Supreme Court
in Gyan Kaur has declared the law as under:-
already commenced. The debate even in such cases to permit physician-assisted termination of life
span of life.
Santhara may fall within the category of cases which may fall within the group of right to die with
dignity as a part of life with dignity when death is certain and imminent and the process of natural
death has commenced. There is long tradition of Santhara in Sharamanic culture which is an
expression of fearless towards death. It is rising above all bodily pains and sufferings. It is a process
of painlessness and becoming a Stith Progya That the contents of para (8) of the writ petition have
no relevancy with the case in hand. It is a case of different circumstances. There are lots of cases
where Anglo-British Courts have permitted the withdrawal of the life supports.
To give meaning and content to the word 'life' inArticle 21, it has been construed as life with
human dignity. Any aspect of life which makes it dignified may be read into it but not that which
extinguishes it and is, therefore, inconsistent with the continued existence of life resulting in
effacing the right itself. The right to die', if any, is inherently inconsistent with the right to life' as
is death' with life'.
the right to live with dignity' is of no assistance to determine the scope ofArticle 21for deciding
of life.
natural death is not available to interpretArticle 21to include therein the right to curtail the natural
span of life.
BIJAYALAXMI AND ORS VS THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF WORKING 1992
It would be apposite to say here that a debate is going on in America not only with regard to
the right to "live with dignity" but the right to "die with dignity". In India too, there are eminent
persons who are preaching euthanasia, which idea is gaining ground. Thus, if citizens could claim
their right to "die with dignity", the right to "live with dignity" has to be conceded without any
ado. As in the present case we are concerned with the scope of the word 'life' in relation to women
and that too working women, who are living in a hostel constructed partly with the aid given by
the Central Government (was it during the International Year for Women?) we shall confine our
attention to this restricted field. For this, we should first like to say something about the true
character of Indian women viewed in the background of our culture and heritage.
ARUNA RAMCHANDRA VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2011
Mr. Naphade, however, has invited our attention to paras 24 & 25 of the aforesaid decision in
which it was observed :
the right to live with dignity' is of no assistance to determine the scope of Article 21 for deciding
of life.
span of life".
Whilst this Court has held that there is no right to die (suicide) under Article 21 of the
Constitution and attempt to suicide is a crime vide Section 309 IPC, the Court has held that
the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity, and in the case of a dying person who
is terminally ill or in a permanent vegetative state he may be permitted to terminate it by a
premature extinction of his life in these circumstances and it is not a crime vide Gian Kaur's case
(supra).
CHAPTER IV
APPRAISAL AND SUGGESTIONS
The Constitution of India is drawn from constitutions of various countries and the courts have
repeatedly referred to various foreign decisions. In India, euthanasia is undoubtedly illegal. If
there is an intention on the part of the doctor in case of euthanasia of mercy killing to end the life
of the patient, it would clearly fall under Section 300(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
However, as in such cases there is a valid consent of the deceased, Exception 5 to Section 300
would be attracted and the doctor or the medical professional would be punishable under Section
304 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. But it is only cases of voluntary euthanasia
(where the patient consents to death) that would attract Exception 5 to Section 300. Cases of
nonvoluntary and involuntary euthanasia would be struck down by proviso one to Section 92 of
the IPC and thus be rendered illegal. The Indian laws are very clear on the aspect of assisted
suicide. Right to suicide is not a “right” available in India – it is punishable under the India Penal
Code, 1860. Provision of punishing suicide is contained in sections 305 (Abetment of suicide of
child or insane person), 306 (Abetment of suicide) and 309 (Attempt to commit suicide) of IPC.
Right to life is an important right enshrined in Constitution of India. Article 21 guarantees the
right to life in India. It is argued that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to die.
Therefore the mercy killing is the legal right of a person. After the decision of a five judge bench
of the Supreme Court in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab37 it is well settled that the “right to life”
guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution does not include the “right to die”. The Court held
that Article 21 is a provision guaranteeing “protection of life and personal liberty” and by no
stretch of the imagination can extinction of life be read into it. In existing regime under the
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 also incidentally deals with the issue at hand. Under section
20A read with section 33(m) of the said Act, the Medical Council of India may prescribe the
standards of professional conduct and etiquette and a code of ethics for medical practitioners.
Exercising these powers, the Medical Council of India has amended the code of medical ethics
for medical practitioners. There under the act of euthanasia has been classified as unethical
except in cases where the life support system is used only to continue the cardio-pulmonary
actions of the body. In such cases, subject to the certification by the term of doctors, life support
system may be removed. A person attempts suicide in a depression, and hence he needs help,
rather than punishment. The Bombay High Court in Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of
Maharashtra examined the constitutional validity of Section 309 and held that the section is
violative of Article 14 as well as 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. Consequently it was held
to be violative of Article 21. The High Court of Bombay in Maruti Shripati Dubal‟s case held
Section 309 (punishment for attempted suicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as violative of
Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution. The Court held section
309 of the IPC as invalid and stated that Article 21 to be construed to include right to die. In P.
Rathinam‟s case, the Supreme Court held that section 309 of the IPC is violative of Article 21 of
the Constitution as the latter includes right to death. The question again came up in Gian Kaur v.
State of Punja case. In this case a five judge Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court
overruled the P. Rathinam‟s case and held that right to life under Article 21 does not include
right to die or right to be killed and there is no ground to hold section 309 of IPC constitutionally
invalid. The true meaning of life enshrined in Article 21 is life with human dignity. Any aspect
of life which makes a life dignified may be included in it but not that which extinguishes it. The
right to die if any is inherently inconsistent with the right to life as is death with life.
NEW DIMENSIONS IN INDIAN HISTORY - ARUNA SHANBAUG’S CASE
Aruna Shanbaug, was a 2 years old nurse, at KEM Hospital and dreaming of marrying her fianc
- a young doctor colleague. She was sexually assaulted on the night of November 27, 1973 by a
ward boy named Sohanlal Walmiki. He sodomized Aruna after strangling her with a dog chain.
Then he left her lying there and went away. The ward boy got a 7 years' sentence for attempt to
murder and robbery. Her next friend (a legal term used for a person speaking on behalf of
someone who is incapacitated) and lawyer Pinki Virani decided to move the Supreme Court with
a plea to direct the KEM Hospital not to force feed her. But doctors at KEM hospital don't agree,
they say she responds through facial expressions. Aruna's case was the focal point of the debate
over euthanasia in India. On the one side, it is the right to live, and the other, death with dignity
and the Supreme Court has the unprecedented and difficult task of deciding on the fate of a
victim in a crime committed 41 years ago. On 24th January, 2011, The Supreme Court consisting
of Hon'ble Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra, J. responded to the plea for euthanasia
filed by the next friend of Aruna‟s Pinki Virani, by setting up a medical panel to examine her.
The three- member medical committee subsequently set up under the Supreme Court's directives,
checked upon Aruna and concluded that she met "most of the criteria of being in a PVS
(persistent vegetative state)." However, it turned down the mercy killing petition on 7th March,
2011. The Court, in its landmark judgment, however, allowed passive euthanasia in India. While
rejecting Pinki Virani's plea for Aruna Shanbaug's euthanasia, the Court laid down guidelines for
passive euthanasia. The case has to be referred to a Medical Board by the relevant High Court
after evaluating the merits of the case, to decide whether passive euthanasia can apply. Till a new
law is enacted by the Parliament on euthanasia, guidelines given under Ms. Shanbaugh's case
will be used as a point of reference by other Courts. There are number of cases where the High
Courts have rejected the euthanasia petitions. In Bangalore, the High Court has rejected the
euthanasia plea of a 72 years old retired teacher from Devanagere, who sought the Court'
permission to die. Justice Ajit Gunjal disposed of the petition based on reports by neuro- surgical
and psychiatric experts from Nirnhans. The reports said Karibasamma does not suffer any pain
or severe ailment. Her spine is normal and she can get-up without any pain. Neither does she
suffer from any mental disorder. Similarly, the Kerala High Court in C.A. Thomas Master v.
Union of India,63 dismissed the Writ Petition filed by a citizen wherein he wanted the
government to set up "Mahaprasthan Kendra" (Voluntary Death Clinic) for the purpose of
facilitating voluntary death and donation, transplantation of bodily organs. In 2005, 'Mohd.
Yunus' from Kashipur, Odissa requested the President for euthanasia on the ground that his
children were suffering from incurable disease but the request was rejected. Similarly, a petition
filed by Mr. Tarkeshwar Sinha from Patna was also rejected. In 2004, a two-judge Bench of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration64 dismissed the
writ petition of a 25-year old terminally-ill patient 'Venktesh' who sought permission to donate
his organs in a non- heart beating condition. The High Court dismissed the writ petition where
'Venktesh' had expressed his wish to be put off the life support system. It is better to leave the
issue with the judiciary, until we prepare ourselves emotionally and practically to accept it as
part of our life.
CHANDRAKANT NARAYANO VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 2020
The State/Respondent has strongly opposed to allow such prayer by filing reply-affidavit. It is the
stand of the State that active euthanasia is not permissible in law and if such exercise is made, it
would amount to an offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Common Cause (Supra) has
only given approval to passive euthanasia. It is further stand of the State Government that Indian
Medical Council (Professional Conduct, antiquate and ethics) Regulation 2002 does not permit
such unethical medical practice.
We agree with the observation made in the reference order of the three-Judge Bench to the effect
that the Constitution Bench in Gian Kaur case did not express any binding view on the subject
of euthanasia. We hold that no binding view was expressed by the Constitution Bench on the
subject of euthanasia.
The Constitution Bench, however, noted a distinction between cases in which physician decides
not to provide or continue to provide for treatment and care, which could or might prolong his life
and those in which he decides to administer a lethal drug even though with object of relieving the
patient from pain and suffering. The latter was held not to be covered under any right flowing
from Article-21.
In view of the regulation 6.7, active euthanasia through registered medical practitioner is also not
permissible in India.
Now, turning back to the facts of the case in hand and the law stands as on today. It is true that
petitioner is 81 years and suffering from various diseases. He is facing enormous pain and agony
day to day, it becomes difficult for him to face such medical problems. It is his wish to have a
"good death" by means of active euthanasia by taking help of registered medical practitioner. In
view of landmark decision in case of Common Cause (supra), active euthanasia is not permissible
in India. Article 21 of the Constitution gives guarantee to life which does not include right to die.
In exceptional circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has prescribed the procedure for
passive euthanasia.
Adverting to the concept of euthanasia, it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Gain Kaur (supra) that protagonism of euthanasia on the view that existence in persistence
vegetative state (PVS) is not a benefit to the patient of terminal illness being unrelated to the
principle of "sanctity of life" or the "right to live with dignity" is of no assistance to determine the
scope of Article 21 for deciding whether the guarantee of "right to life" therein includes the "right
to die". The "right to life" includes the right to live with human dignity would mean the existence
of such a right up to the end of natural life. It has been clarified that the right to die with dignity at
the end of life is not to be confused or equated with the "right to die" an unnatural death reducing
the natural span of life.
COMMON CAUSE VS UNION OF INDIA 2014
Thus it is obvious that no final view was expressed in the decision in Gian Kaur's case beyond
what we have mentioned above.” It was further held that:-
The Constitution Bench of the Indian Supreme Court in Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab 1996 (2)
SCC 648 held that both euthanasia and assisted suicide are not lawful in India. That decision
overruled the earlier two Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in P. Rathinam vs. Union of
India 1994(3) SCC 394. The Court held that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution
does not include the right to die (vide para 33). In Gian Kaur's case (supra) the Supreme Court
approved of the decision of the House of Lords in Airedale's case (supra), and observed
that euthanasia could be made lawful only by legislation.
Insofar as the above paragraphs are concerned, Aruna Shanbaug (supra) aptly interpreted the
decision of the Constitution Bench in Gian Kaur (supra) and came to the conclusion
that euthanasia can be allowed in India only through a valid legislation. However, it is factually
wrong to observe that in Gian Kaur (supra), the Constitution Bench approved the decision of the
House of Lords in Airedale vs. Bland (1993) 2 W.L.R. 316 (H.L.). Para 40 of Gian Kaur (supra),
clearly states that “even though it is not necessary to deal with physician assisted suicide
or euthanasia cases, a brief reference to this decision cited at the Bar may be made…” Thus, it was
a mere reference in the verdict and it cannot be construed to mean that the Constitution Bench in
Gian Kaur (supra) approved the opinion of the House of Lords rendered in Airedale (supra). To
this extent, the observation in Para 101 is incorrect.
In Paras 21 & 101, the Bench was of the view that in Gian Kaur (supra), the Constitution Bench
held that euthanasia could be made lawful only by a legislation. Whereas in Para 104, the Bench
contradicts its own interpretation of Gian Kaur (supra) in Para 101 and states that although this
court approved the view taken in Airedale (supra), it has not clarified who can decide whether life
support should be discontinued in the case of an incompetent person e.g., a person in coma or PVS.
When, at the outset, it is interpreted to hold that euthanasia could be made lawful only by
legislation where is the question of deciding whether the life support should be discontinued in
the case of an incompetent person e.g., a person in coma or PVS.
P RATHIRAM VS UNION OF INDIA 2014
Though what we propose to decide in these cases would, therefore, relate to the offence of
attempted suicide, it is nonetheless required to be stated that euthanasia is not much unrelated to
the act of committing suicide inasmuch as wherever passive euthanasia has been held to be
permissible under the law, one of the requirements insisted upon is consent of the patient or of his
relations in case the patient be not in a position to give voluntary consent. The relationship between
suicide and euthanasia has come to be highlighted in a decision of the Supreme Court of Nevada
(one of the States of United States of America) in Mckay v. Bergstedt5 where a patient filed a
petition to the court for permitting disconnection of his respirator. The district court, on the facts
of the case, granted permission. The State appealed to the Supreme Court of Nevada which, after
balancing the interest of the patient against the relevant State interest, affirmed the district court's
judgment. The court took the view that the desire of the patient for withdrawal of his respirator did
not tantamount to suicide the same was rather an exercise of his constitutional and common law
right to discontinue unwanted medical treatment. This was the view taken by the majority. One of
the Judges expressed a dissenting view.
The Editor of Calcutta Weekly Notes in his comments at pp. 37 to 40 [of (1986-87) 91 CWN
(Journal Section)] has observed that the distinction made by the Bombay High Court between
"suicide" and "euthanasia" appears logically inconsistent. According to the Editor, the rationale of
the judgment would necessarily permit euthanasia as legal. This comment may not be quite
incorrect, because in passive euthanasia, wherever it has been accepted as legally permissible,
consent of the patient, if he be in a sound mental condition, has been regarded as one of the
prerequisites. So, if one could legally commit suicide, he could also give consent for his being
allowed to die. But then, the legal and other questions relatable to euthanasia are in many ways
different from those raised by suicide. One would, therefore, be right in making a distinction
logically and in principle between suicide and euthanasia, though it may be that if suicide is held
to be legal, the persons pleading for legal acceptance of passive euthanasia would have a winning
point. For the cases at hand, we would remain content by saying that the justification for allowing
persons to commit suicide is not required to be played down or cut down because of any
encouragement to persons pleading for legalisation of mercy-killing.
ALPANA BHARTI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA 2015
The Public Prosecutor in-charge of the case, having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case, the background of petitioners, the circumstances in which 20 black kites were subjected
to euthanasia, has made an application under section 321 Cr.P.C., for withdrawal of prosecution.
The learned trial Judge has dismissed the application.
On hearing the learned senior counsel for petitioners and learned HCGP, I find that petitioners
being the founder trustees of 'People for Animals', a registered Public Charitable Trust formed in
the year 1998, with the objects of promoting and encouraging greater awareness for animal rights,
had taken recourse to subject 20 black kites to euthanasia, which is a medical process. It is not
the case of prosecution that petitioners had haunted or trapped black kites for commercial
exploitation. In the circumstances, the continuation of prosecution will not serve any public
purpose. Therefore, the Public Prosecutor had made an application under section 321 Cr.P.C., to
withdraw prosecution. The learned trial Judge, without considering the background of case and
absence of mens rea on the part of petitioners had dismissed the application. In my considered
opinion, there was no mens rea on the part of petitioners. The petitioners had subjected 20 black
kites to euthanasia as per medical advice. The prosecution case does not reveal that petitioners had
trapped 20 black kites for commercial exploitation or for some other illegal purpose. Therefore,
the continuation of prosecution will not serve any useful purpose. In the circumstances, the learned
trial Judge should have granted permission to withdraw prosecution.
Ms. Taposhi Chakervarti v. State (2000)
The present case was a revision petition that appeared before the Delhi High Court concerning
charges under Sections 306/498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by the
Additional Sessions Judge against the petitioner. The petitioner was a relative of a deceased
woman who had committed suicide out of angusih developed from her in-laws joint family with
whom she was residing after her marriage. The only material available on record for the
petitioner to show to the Court were two letters written by the deceased giving reasons as to why
she had chosen to take the drastic step of ending her life.
Issues raised before the Court of law
1. Whether the act of suicide fall under the subject-matter of ‘right to die’?
2. Whether the charges framed against the petitioner stand valid owing to the
circumstances of the case and the ingredients of Section 107 and 108 of the 1860
Code are made out to justify an offence under Section 306?
Reasoning opined by the Delhi High Court
1. So long as the right to die is effectively exercised, the law recognises it. A failed effort
to take one’s own life is punishable, yet, a successful attempt at self-destruction is not.
However, where suicide is not a voluntary act but is carried out under duress, the law
punishes those who may be held responsible for causing it, either directly or
indirectly, through active suggestion or the creation of objective conditions that drive
the victim to it, but only if these are intended to achieve the desired result.
2. Everyone has a different tolerance level. The coping strategy differs from person to
person. Some people can handle certain types of pressures, while others can’t. When
someone commits suicide, it raises challenging issues about the reason for it, the
compulsions for it, the circumstances that led to it, and those who were, wittingly or
inadvertently, purposefully or unintentionally, responsible for it. The answers to these
questions will determine whether a person is guilty of abetment or not, and these
questions can be effectively answered not only with reference to the victim’s last
words, which may or may not be unbiased, but also with material pertaining to the
victim’s background, the state of the environments in which the act was committed,
and the conduct of the suspect at the time of the act.
3. The abettor must be demonstrated to have aided the commission of the crime on
purpose, and mere proof that the act accused could not have been accomplished
without the suspected abettor’s intervention is insufficient to meet Section 107’s
standards. The same does not meet the requirements for the accused to be charged
under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Penal Code.
4. The deceased in the present case was a “sensitive, pious, and devoted person who was
finding the usual wear and tear of life to be difficult to cope with,” according to the
remarks recorded at the most. This mentality is also reflected in the letters she left
behind. As a result, reading more into the content than is necessary would be
prohibited. In the absence of any other material, the trial of the accused on the charge
stated above would appear to be an exercise in futility and hence should not be
continued.
Judgement of the Delhi High Court
1. The Court observed that if the accused must be acquitted on the evidence, subjecting
her to the misery of trial would be a misuse of the court’s process, especially since the
accused must have already suffered mental anguish and shame as a result of the sad
occurrence.
2. The action or inaction of those who had the moral and legal obligation to keep the
deceased happy and satisfied could not be described as anything other than impelled
by judicial malice, however socially condemnable they were.
3. As a result, the petition was granted. The accusation under Sections 306 and 498-A of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were quashed, and the challenged order was set aside.
People for elimination of stray dogs v. The State of Goa by its Chief
Secretary (2008)
The facts of the present case unfold that in a judgement and order dated October 5, 1998, a
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court established certain rules for dealing with the problem
of stray dogs. All parties, including the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and the
intervenors, agreed to the foregoing order. Comprehensive Guidelines for Dog Control and
Management were therefore framed. The aforementioned Guidelines state that stray dogs should
not be killed unless they are critically ill, violent, fatally injured, or rabid. It further states that
aggressive, diseased, incurably ill, and mortally wounded dogs, as well as those capable of
transmitting diseases as recognised and diagnosed by a certified veterinarian, must be euthanized
in a humane way.
Meanwhile, under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the Central Government had
enacted the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules 2001. Learned Counsel, Mrs.Norma Alvares had
argued that Section 11(3)(b) of the Act should not be interpreted in isolation from the Act’s other
sections dealing with animal cruelty prevention. By mentioning the same, she wanted to point
out that it’s crucial to remember Article 51A(g) of the Indian Constitution, which states that
every Indian citizen has a constitutional obligation to exhibit compassion to all living species.
Homeless/abandoned stray dogs are especially deserving of societal compassion, therefore
killing stray dogs only because they are ownerless would constitute a lack of compassion, and
thus would be a violation of Article 51A (g). Similarly, outlawing euthanasia completely would
be a breach of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, as it would be a threat to everyone’s right to
life.
Issues raised before the Court of law
1. Whether the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty

to Animals Act, 1960, and the relevant provisions of the Bombay Municipalities
Act, Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (MMC Act) and the Goa Municipalities
Act and other enactments can be used in the circumstances and seriousness of the
problem, the danger posed and the threat posed by stray dogs?
2. Is it necessary to prohibit the killing of stray dogs in spite of the aforementioned
requirements of sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Act, 1960 and other Acts referred to above?
Judgement of the Court of law
1. The Court of Law had observed that Section 11(3) of the Act of 1960 does not allow
for the execution of “all” stray dogs in deadly chambers or by other means.
2. The Bombay High Court further stated that if a veterinarian comes across dogs who
are incurably ill, gravely injured, or rabid while implementing the dogs control
scheme, he should not waste his time and energy treating them and is permitted to put
them to sleep. Other than these types of dogs, this does not preclude them from being
put to sleep under the provisions of Section 11(3) of the Act of 1960 and Section 191-
BA of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. Dogs that are detected or reported to
be a source of public nuisance, and if the nuisance exists, the Commissioner has the
authority to destroy the dog(s) in accordance with Section 191BA of the MMC Act.
H. B. Karibasamma v. the Union Of India (2012)
The petitioner in the present case was a retired school teacher who is around 70 years old. She is
currently residing at a nursing home for the elderly. The petitioner had been suffering from a
serious health ailment known as ‘Intervertebral Disc Prolapse,’ or ‘Slip Disc.’ The condition in
question was a disorder in which the outer fibrous ring of the spine tears, causing the soft, middle
section of the spine to pop out. The disc ring rip may cause the release of inflammatory chemical
mediators, which can cause significant discomfort. This ailment had plagued the petitioner for
the past ten to eleven years. The petitioner was diabetic as well.
The petitioner appears to have sought the advice of several doctors, both neurologists and
orthopaedic surgeons, in order to find a cure for her condition. However, due to the petitioner’s
age and health condition, all of the doctors have recommended non-surgical, conservative
treatments, whereas any possible improvement in her condition can only be achieved through
invasive surgery.
The petitioner was not only in extreme bodily pain, but also suffers from mental anguish and is
monetarily disadvantaged. The petitioner appears to have undertaken all of the necessary steps to
alleviate the discomfort, but had failed, and was unwilling to endure a life of excruciating agony
and sorrow. As a result, the petitioner has made the decision to end her life because it had been
nothing but a continual drudgery of excruciating pain and mental anguish.
Issue raised before the Court of law
Whether the petitioner in the present case can be termed as a person who is terminally ill or is in
a permanent vegetative state, inasmuch as she requires the administration of euthanasia?
Judgement delivered by the Court
The Karnataka High Court delivered the following judgement:
1. The guidelines laid down in the Aruna Shanbaug were followed.

2. The Court declared that the petitioner cannot be termed as a person who is terminally
ill or is in a permanent vegetative state, inasmuch as she does not require the
administration of euthanasia.
Judgement delivered by the Supreme Court of India
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, an
individual has the right to die with dignity as part of his or her right to life and personal liberty.
As a result of this judgement, life-support systems for the terminally ill or those in incurable
comas can be removed. The Court also recognised the importance of writing a living will and
allowed people to opt out of artificial life support. In this decision, the Court also established
certain propositions regarding the procedure for executing advance directives and issued
guidance for doing so in order to give effect to passive euthanasia. The judgement delivered by
the Bench comprising of former Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices A.K. Sikri, A.M.
Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, can be categorised under the following
heads:
1. Death with dignity: A life without dignity is an unbearable defeat, whereas a life that
faces death with dignity is a virtue to be aspired to and a reason to rejoice. Sanctioning
under Article 21, the right to a dignified life in the face of adversity right to a
dignified death.
2. Sanctity of life vs. Quality of life: The right to life is the most important right, and
the right to die with dignity is justified by “quality of life.” According to the Indian
Constitution, human dignity is vital to safeguarding the sanctity of life, and dignity is
harmed by pain, suffering, and the progressive loss of physiological functions, as
stated by Justice Chandrachud in this case.
3. Legal implications for doctors: In this opinion, J. Chandrachud found that a doctor’s
decision to withhold or discontinue medical intervention for a terminally ill patient
should not be intended to cause death. However, in order to alleviate the suffering, the
conduct should not be classified as culpable homicide or murder.
4. Hypocratic oath: “I will not offer a medication that is fatal,” says the Hypocratic
Oath. This is frequently misinterpreted as a ban on euthanasia. So, in the name of
oath, should a person be allowed to remain in such an incurable state of inactivity,
suffering from pain and anguish? In contrast, the terminally ill patient should have the
full right to close the doors of life and enter the dark tunnel of death painlessly and
with dignity. Individual dignity should be preserved by smoothing the process of
dying only permitted for passive euthanasia if medical technology exists and s/he is
unaware of what is happening.
5. Advanced directives: Advanced directives comprise two components, namely, living
will (passive euthanasia) and durable power of attorney for health care (active
euthanasia). Living willI, a person’s thoughts and preferences regarding medical care,
assures the ‘Consent & Authenticity’ for termination of the treatment and smoothens
its death process. Whereas durable power of attorney for healthcare, allows another
individual to make medical decisions for a patient who is unable to do so themselves
(unconscious, mentally unstable). The final outcome will be rendered by the high
court after consultation with three panellists of the Medical Board, under the
impression of close relatives.
Global euthanasia and assisted suicide laws
An overview of the status of euthanasia in different countries has been outlined hereunder:
1. Canada: Sue Rodriguez, dubbed “Victoria Woman,” was diagnosed with Lou
Gehrig’s disease in 1991 and petitioned politicians to modify the statute prohibiting
assisted suicide in 1992. Despite the fact that Rodriguez was found guilty by the
Supreme Court of Canada, she had committed suicide in 1994 with the help of an
unknown doctor.
2. The Netherlands: In 2002, the county passed legislation to make assisted suicide and
active euthanasia legal. Since 1984, however, the courts have allowed them. Doctors
were given strict guidelines by the Dutch government. Patients who are in
excruciating pain and have little possibility of recovery may request to die. He or she
must have a thorough understanding of the patient’s condition and prognosis, and a
second doctor must concur with the choice to assist the patient in dying.
3. Belgium: In 2002, Belgium made euthanasia lawful. If the patient’s competency is in
dispute, two doctors must be involved, as well as a psychologist. The doctor and the
patient can agree on a fatal injection or a prescription overdose as a method of death.
4. Switzerland: Since 1941, assisted suicide by a physician and a non-physician has
been legal, but euthanasia has been prohibited. Three right-to-die organisations in the
country provide counselling and lethal medications to terminally ill persons. Injection-
based death is prohibited.
5. Britain: In May 2006, a Bill that would have legalised assisted suicide for terminally
sick people was defeated in the House of Lords.
6. United States: Passive euthanasia is authorised in only three US states, namely,
Oregon, Washington, and Montana.
Countries where euthanasia is legal
1. Till date, euthanasia has been legalised in the Netherlands, Belgium, and
Luxembourg. PAS is also legal in the Netherlands and Luxembourg. The states of
Oregon and Washington authorised PAS in 1997 and 1999, respectively, but
euthanasia remains illegal in the United States. The status in Montana is currently
unclear. In 2010, the state legislature passed a law legalising PAS, but it was recently
defeated by the State’s Senate Judiciary Committee.
2. After over 30 years of public debate, euthanasia and assisted suicide were fully
allowed in the Netherlands in 2001. The Royal Dutch Medical Association has
collaborated with the country’s court system to develop and adapt standards and
procedures for administering and controlling euthanasia since the 1980s. Despite
strong resistance, especially from the Belgian Medical Association, Belgium legalised
euthanasia in 2002, following a three-year public debate that included government
commissions.
3. The law was influenced by the experiences of the Netherlands and Oregon, and the
public was assured that any flaws in Dutch law would be corrected in Belgian law. In
2009, Luxembourg approved euthanasia and assisted suicide. Switzerland is an
outlier, in that aided suicide is allowed despite the fact that it is not technically
legalised. This is due to a loophole in a statute that decriminalises suicide and dates
back to the early 1900s. Euthanasia, on the other hand, is prohibited. A person who is
committing suicide with the help of another person is allowed to do so as long as the
other person has no selfish intentions and stands to benefit personally from the death.
Unlike other jurisdictions, Switzerland enables non-physicians to help people die via
euthanasia or assisted suicide.
4. Safeguards, criteria, and procedures were implemented in all of these nations to
regulate the practices, ensure social oversight, and prevent euthanasia and assisted
suicide from being abused or misused. Some criteria and methods are consistent
across jurisdictions, while others differ by country. A closer examination of the extent
to which these rules and protections have been able to control practices and prevent
abuse is warranted, particularly by states considering legalising euthanasia and PAS.
Switzerland
1. Switzerland is probably the first country that springs to mind when it comes to
physician-assisted suicide because it enables it without a minimum age requirement,
diagnosis, or symptom state.
2. Assisted suicide, on the other hand, is banned if the intentions are “selfish,” such as if
the person assisting the death stands to inherit sooner or doesn’t want the
responsibility of caring for a sick person. In this country, euthanasia is not permitted.
3. In 2018, 221 people visited the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland for assisted suicide, 87
among them were from Germany, 31 from France, and 24 from the United Kingdom.
According to the Campaign for Dignity in Dying, a British person used to travel to
Dignitas for help to die every eight days.
4. About 1.5% of Swiss deaths are the result of assisted suicide.
Netherlands
1. In the Netherlands, euthanasia and assisted suicide are authorised in circumstances

where someone is suffering unbearably and there is no hope of relief. There is no
condition that you be terminally ill or that you wait for a certain amount of time.
2. The Dutch government authorised proposals in October 2020 to allow euthanasia for
terminally ill children aged one to twelve. According to the BBC, the health ministry
stated that the rule modification would save some youngsters from “suffering
endlessly and unbearably.”
3. For those under the age of 16, parental permission is required. Before assisted dying
can be allowed, a variety of checks must be completed. Doctors who are considering
legalising assisted dying must speak with at least one other doctor to ensure that the
patient fits the requirements.
Spain
1. In March 2021, Spain made it lawful in certain situations for people to take their own
lives.
2. According to the BBC, the rule permits adults with “serious and incurable” conditions
that inflict “unbearable suffering” to opt to end their lives. When making the request,
the adult must be a Spanish national or legal resident who is “completely aware and
conscious” of the situation. The request must be filed twice in writing.
3. In Spain, aiding someone to die was punished with up to ten years in prison prior to
the law’s passage.
Belgium
1. Belgium permits euthanasia and assisted suicide for people who are in excruciating
pain with no hope of improvement. There is a one-month waiting time before
euthanasia can be conducted if the patient is not terminally sick.
2. Belgium does not have an age limit for children, but they must have a fatal illness to
be approved.
Canada
1. Canada’s statute on assisted dying was expanded in March 2021. Adults with a
chronic and incurable “disease, illness, or disability” who are in an advanced
condition of dying and suffering can now request a medically assisted death,
according to the New York Times.
2. Previously, euthanasia and assisted suicide were only approved for persons suffering
from “grievous and irreversible disorders” whose death was “reasonably foreseeable.”
3. According to the BBC, medically assisted deaths accounted for 1.89 percent of all
deaths in Canada in 2019.
4. Only euthanasia is legal in Quebec.
Luxembourg
In Luxembourg, assisted suicide and euthanasia are both allowed for adults. Patients must be
suffering from an incurable illness that causes them constant, terrible mental or physical pain
with no hope of recovery.
Colombia
1. In 1997, Colombia became the first Latin American country to decriminalize

euthanasia, with the first death occurring in 2015.
2. According to the Rio Times, the Colombian Constitutional Court expanded the law on
euthanasia or assisted death to include cases of non-terminal illnesses in July
2021, “provided that the patient is in intense physical or psychological suffering,
resulting from bodily injury or serious and incurable illness.”
Australia
1. After 20 years and 50 failed efforts, the Australian state of Victoria became the first in
the country to enact voluntary euthanasia legislation in November 2017. In 1997, the
Australian Senate abolished the law after a popular outcry against the 1995 Bill that
enabled it.
2. You must be an adult with decision-making ability, a resident of Victoria, and
suffering from intolerable pain owing to a disease with a life expectancy of less than
six months, or 12 months if suffering from a neurological illness, to qualify for legal
approval for euthanasia.
3. The idea of assisted dying cannot be brought up by a doctor; it must be brought up by
the patient first. You must submit three requests to the scheme, one of which must be
in writing. According to the Guardian, you must next be evaluated by two competent
doctors, one of whom is a specialist, to determine your eligibility.
4. If you qualify, you will be given medications that you must store in a “locked box”
until a time that you specify. A doctor can provide a deadly injection if you are unable
to administer the fatal medications yourself.
5. Since then, Victoria has been joined by Western Australia, South Australia, and
Tasmania in legalising voluntary assisted death. And, despite being one of the most
conservative states in Australia, Queensland became the sixth to allow voluntary
euthanasia in September 2021, with an overwhelming majority of MPs voting in
favour.
6. According to the Guardian, voluntary assisted dying will be limited to persons who
have an advanced and progressive disease that causes intolerable suffering and is
predicted to kill them within a year.
France
1. In France, palliative sedation, in which a person can want to be heavily drugged until
death, is legal, but assisted dying is not.
2. In April 2021, a proposal in the French parliament to legalise assisted dying for
persons with terminal conditions was defeated.
3. Neither President Emmanuel Macron nor his government has commented on the
subject, though Macron was cited as saying in 2017 that “I myself wish to pick the end
of my life,” according to France 24.
USA
1. Assisted death is currently legal in some states. Doctor-assisted suicide for terminally
ill patients is legal in Oregon, Washington, Vermont, California, Colorado,
Washington, DC, Hawaii, New Jersey, Maine, Montana, and New Mexico, according
to state statutes or court judgements.
2. Doctors can issue people prescriptions for the lethal medications, but they must be
administered by a healthcare practitioner.
3. A 15-day waiting period is required between two spoken requests, and a two-day
waiting period is required between a final written request and the fulfilment of the
prescription in all states.
New Zealand
1. The BBC reported that New Zealanders decided to legalise euthanasia in October
2020, calling it a “win for compassion and generosity” by activists.
2. If approved by two doctors, terminally ill persons with less than six months to live
will be able to choose assisted death. It was scheduled to take effect in November of
2021.
Countries where euthanasia is not legal
Although it is clear from the aforementioned list of countries that the remaining countries not
included in the list contribute to declare euthanasia illegal within their jurisdiction, a general,
non-exhaustive list of such countries have been provided hereunder.
Chile
In Chile, active euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal. However, passive euthanasia is legal.
The right to informed consent has been in place since 2012, and it empowers people to accept or
refuse any medical treatment. When a patient’s life is on the verge of ending, they have the
option of refusing treatment. The Congress is currently debating a bill that would legalise active
euthanasia and assisted suicide. On December 12, 2020, the Chamber of Deputies passed the bill
in its entirety.
Czech Republic
Euthanasia and assisted suicide are prohibited in the Czech Republic. Both are deemed
homicides in that jurisdiction. Articles 143 and 144 of the Czech Republic’s Criminal
Code make it illegal.
Finland
Active euthanasia is not legal in Finland. Passive euthanasia, however, is legal.
United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, active euthanasia is prohibited. Anyone caught assisting suicide or
attempting suicide is breaking the law, and they can be charged with assisting suicide or
attempted suicide. Lord Joffe attempted four times between 2003 and 2006 to introduce
measures that would have legalised voluntary euthanasia, all of which were rejected by the UK
Parliament. By way of advance decisions allowing patients the right to decline life-saving
treatment, passive euthanasia is legal.
Turkey
In Turkey, euthanasia is severely prohibited. Under the provisions of Article 84 of the Turkish
Criminal Law, an aide who assisted or encouraged a person to commit suicide or other means of
self-destruction will be penalised for assisting and encouraging suicide. In the case of active
euthanasia, Article 81 of the same legislation states that anyone who commits this act shall be
tried and sentenced to life in prison, exactly as anyone who commits a simple murder.
India
In India, passive euthanasia is legal. The Supreme Court of India legalised passive euthanasia by
withdrawing life support from people in a permanent vegetative condition on March 7, 2018.
Active euthanasia, such as the delivery of fatal chemicals, is prohibited.
Ireland
A doctor (or anyone else) cannot actively contribute to someone’s death in Ireland. If a person
(or their next of kin) requests it, it is not illegal to stop life support and other treatments (the
“right to die”). According to a poll conducted by the Irish Times in September 2010, the majority
of respondents (57%) felt that doctor-assisted suicide should be permitted for terminally ill
patients who desire it. After being sedated, doctors can stop giving a patient life-sustaining
therapies like ventilators and feeding tubes, enabling the patient to die peacefully in their sleep.
This only happens in particular situations. The Dying with Dignity Bill passed its second reading
on October 7, 2020, and a delaying amendment was defeated, bringing Ireland closer to
legalising assisted dying.
Israel
The Israeli Penal Code prohibits causing another’s death, as well as causing another’s life to be
cut short. In some situations, active euthanasia has been legalised in Israel. Passive euthanasia
could be administered using a switch mechanism similar to Sabbath clocks, according to ideas
made in 2005.
Italy
Active euthanasia is prohibited by Article 579 of the Italian Criminal Code. Following a petition
signed by over a million individuals, the Constitutional Court dismissed a request to hold a
referendum on the legalising of euthanasia in February 2022.
Latvia
Euthanasia is not legal in Latvia. However a doctor may refuse further treatment of a patient if
they believe it is the best course of action.
Lithuania
Euthanasia is not legal in Lithuania. However, as of 2016 a draft of a law about the right to die
has been produced
Moldova
All forms of euthanasia are banned in Moldova. They are prohibited by Articles 150 and 162 of
the Criminal Code.
Mexico
Active euthanasia is illegal in Mexico, but since 7 January 2008, the law has allowed terminally
ill people or their closest relatives if they are unconscious in Mexico City, the central state of
Aguascalientes (since 6 April 2009), and the western state of Michoacán to refuse medication or
further medical treatment in order to prolong their lives (also known as passive euthanasia).
Norway
Active voluntary euthanasia remains illegal, though a caregiver may receive a reduced
punishment for taking the life of someone who consents to it.
Peru
Although there have been some attempts to alter Peruvian legislation, euthanasia is still
considered a crime. The Reviser Special Commission of the Penal Code of the Parliament voiced
its support for a proposal to change Article 112 of the Penal Code in October 2009, but the
proposal failed. However, in early 2015, the situation of young Valentina Maureira, a Chilean
woman suffering from cystic fibrosis, an incurable disease, and who requested that euthanasia be
legalised in her country, drew the attention of Chilean and international media.
Philippines
In the Philippines, euthanasia is prohibited. The Philippine Senate debated whether or not to
enact a measure authorising passive euthanasia in 1997. The Catholic Church in the country was
outspoken in its opposition to the law. The Philippines would have become the first country to
legalise euthanasia if it had been approved. Doctors who help a patient in dying might be
imprisoned and punished with malpractice under present legislation.
Russia
Article 45 of Russian Federal Law No 323 prohibits euthanasia as of November 2011. However,
there is no law that particularly punishes illegal euthanasia procedures. In Soviet Russia, active
euthanasia was temporarily legalised in 1922.
The concept of living will

On March 2018 the Supreme court legalized passive euthanasia as part of the case involving
Aruna Shanbaug who died in 2015 after decades of being in a Persistent Vegetative State. The
five-judge constitutional bench of the top court pronounced in its judgement that it is permitting
passive euthanasia and granting legal recognition to Advanced Medical Directives or ‘Living
Will’ for the first time in India. It is a legal document that underlines the wish of a person if they
are terminally ill or unable to make an informed choice due to incapacitation. It is essential that
its execution is free from any external interference in the form of inducement, coercion, or
compulsion.
The execution of “Living Will” involved the following criteria:
1. A medical board consisting of the head of the treatment department and three experts
from various fields of medical science with a minimum of twenty years’ experience
have to be set up by the hospital where the patient is admitted. The medical team after
visiting the patient in the presence of family or close relative would certify to grant the
living will or reject it.
2. If the board accepts the grant of the “living will” it would then inform the Collector of
that jurisdiction about such a proposal.
3. A subsequent medical board would be constituted by the Collector with the Chief
District Medical Officer as its chairman along with three members from different
medical science fields.
4. The chairman would then be required to convey that decision to the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class before any process of withdrawal of treatment.
5. The magistrate would then visit the patient and on subsequent examination allow the
withdrawal of life support.
6. The family would be able to approach the high court if the medical board refuses to
grant permission to execute the living will which would require the Chief Justice of
that high court to set up a medical board.
It explicitly requires that the decision of the patient should be communicated in advance
regarding the withdrawal of lifesaving equipment which has to be upheld by doctors and the
hospitals. It had a noteworthy impact on the current debate on euthanasia in India as passive
euthanasia received legal recognition as well the inclusion of the right to die within the right to
life under the ambit of article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court had also laid down various
elaborate points concerning the advance medical directive on part of the individual giving his
consent in writing to enforce such a will. The tenets laid down dealt with the who would be the
executioner of the living will and in what manner, the process of its recording, refusal of
permission by medical board and inapplicability of the directive.
Some suggestions and scope for improvement:
A close perusal of the arguments against euthanasia that have been summarized above tends to
indicate that all the talk about sanctity of life notwithstanding, the opposition to euthanasia
breeds from the fear of misuse of the right if it is permitted.
It is feared that placing the discretion in the hands of the doctor would be placing too much
power in his hands and he may misuse such power. This fear stems largely from the fact that the
discretionary power is placed in the hands of non judicial personnel . This is so because we do
not shirk from placing the same kind of power in the hands of a judge (for example, when we
give the judge the power to decide whether to award a death sentence or a sentence of
imprisonment for life). But what is surprising is that the fear is of the very person (the doctor) in
who’s hands we would otherwise not be afraid of placing our lives. A doctor with a scalpel in his
hands is acceptable but not a doctor with a fatal injection. What is even more surprising is that
ordinarily the law does not readily accept negligence on the part of a doctor. The Courts trade
with great caution when examining the decision of a doctor and yet his decision in the cases of
euthanasia is not considered reliable.
It is felt that a terminally ill patient who suffers from unbearable pain should be allowed to die.
Indeed, spending valuable time, money, and facilities on a person who has neither the desire nor
the hope of recovery is nothing but a waste of the same.
And amidst all the fear of misutilization, there is a serious need for full fledged legislation on this
behalf. The Parliament should frame the bill and open it for discussion. It's high time that such
sensitive matters should have proper law and be regulated accordingly.
Conclusion:
While many countries around the world have already recognised and legalised the provision of
euthanasia, the legalisation of the same may not be a very appealing idea. The courts in India,
have, accordingly, taken a long time, from the cases of Gian Kaur, Aruna Shanbaug, to the case
of Common cause (a regd. Society), in recognising and legalising the euthanasia, and have
legalised passive, voluntary euthanasia. The Apex Court is the highest court of judicature, and the
decisions given it has to be respected and acknowledged by all the citizens of the country, since
the bench deciding the cases is highly experienced and wise. Therefore, this decision of legalising
passive voluntary euthanasia is appreciated, owing to the recent developments on the law of
euthanasia in some countries. Active euthanasia has not been legalised yet, and hopefully will
not be done in the future as well. Euthanasia is going to be more of a mischief than a boon for
the people for whom the legalisation has been done.
In view of the discussion above I believe that voluntary euthanasia should also be
allowed in India and that the legislature should step in and make a special law dealing with all
the aspects of euthanasia. So we need a law to legalize euthanasia with adequate safeguards.
The recommendations laid down in the Reports of Law Commission of India and guidelines given
in the Aruna’s case are to be taken into consideration when any law on that point is to be framed
to prevent the mal practices and misuse of euthanasia. Besides, if the suggestions laid down
above are implemented then the chances of misuse of euthanasia would be greatly reduced.
References
[i]
Prof. S. N. Misra, Indian Penal Code 535 (Central Law Publications, Allahabad, 21st edn., 2018)
[ii]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/activepassive_1.shtml, assessed on
29tth April, 2020 at 3:10 PM (IST)
[iii]
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, 2011(3) SCALE 298; MANU/SC/0176/2011
[iv]
Supra note 3.
[v]
MANU/SC/0335/1966
[vi]
MANU/SC/0176/2011
[vii]
MANU/SC/0232/2018
• Active and passive euthanasia, available

at http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/activepassive_1.shtml, (last
visited on April 29, 2020).
• Caesar Roy, “Position of Euthanasia in India – An Analytical Study”, The Indian
Journal of Criminology and Criminalistics, XXXII, 37.
• Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India (Central Law Agency, Allahabad,
56th edn., 2019).
• John Keown (ed.), Euthanasia Examined – ethical, clinical and legal perspectives,(The
Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom, reprint,
1999).
• Law Commission, 241st Report on Passive Euthanasia – A Relook.
• Prof. S. N. Misra, Indian Penal Code (Central Law Publications, Allahabad, 21st edn.,
2018).
• The cases of Gian Kaur, Aruna Shanbaug, and Common Cause(a regd. Soceity),
available on https://indiankanoon.org/, (last visited on May 1, 2020).

PROJECT Anjalidora2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROJECT Anjalidora2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROJECT ON ANALYSIS OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELATION TO

RIGHT TO DIE IN INDIA

SUBMITTED BY: - ANJALI DORA

SOA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LAW (SNIL)

SIKSHA “O” ANUSANDHAN DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY

I, ANJALI DORA student of SOA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LAW, Department of

DATE :20/12/22 NAME- ANJALI DORA

It gave me immense pleasure to write a preface on my project on topic “ project on AN

I have decided the assigned project work into four chapters;

In first I have introduced the subject.

In the second chapter, I have mentioned the legislative provisions.

In third chapter, it is mentioned the judicial analysis regarding the subject.

Never to have drawn the breath of life, never to

have looked into the eye of day; The second best’s a

swift goodnight and quickly turn”.

Different Types of Euthanasia and Meaning:

i. Passive: A mode of ending life in which a physician is given an option not

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EUTHANASIA AND MURDER

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EUTHANASIA AND SUICIDE

Euthanasia and Indian Law

Arguments against euthanasia

Reasons for declaring euthanasia legal

Reasons for declaring euthanasia illegal

COUNTERARGUMENT OF EUTHANASIA SUPPORTERS

Encouraging the organ transplantation: Euthanasia in terminally ill patients provides an

LANDMARK CASES ON RIGHT TO DIE-

COMMON CAUSE(A REGD SOCIETY) VS UNION OF INDIA 2018

After reproducing the said passage, the Court opined thus:-

NIKHIL SONI VS UNION OF INDIA 2015

BIJAYALAXMI AND ORS VS THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF WORKING 1992

NEW DIMENSIONS IN INDIAN HISTORY - ARUNA SHANBAUG’S CASE

CHANDRAKANT NARAYANO VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 2020

COMMON CAUSE VS UNION OF INDIA 2014

P RATHIRAM VS UNION OF INDIA 2014

ALPANA BHARTI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA 2015

Issues raised before the Court of law

Reasoning opined by the Delhi High Court

Judgement of the Delhi High Court

Issues raised before the Court of law

1. Whether the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty

Judgement of the Court of law

Issue raised before the Court of law

Judgement delivered by the Court

The Karnataka High Court delivered the following judgement:

1. The guidelines laid down in the Aruna Shanbaug were followed.

Countries where euthanasia is legal

1. In the Netherlands, euthanasia and assisted suicide are authorised in circumstances

1. In 1997, Colombia became the first Latin American country to decriminalize

Active euthanasia is not legal in Finland. Passive euthanasia, however, is legal.

The concept of living will

The execution of “Living Will” involved the following criteria:

Some suggestions and scope for improvement:

• Active and passive euthanasia, available

You might also like