Dr.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
2021-2022

BASICS OF LEGISLATION-I

“REGULATION OF RIGHT TO DIE & EUTHANASIA”

SUBMITTED TO – SUBMITTED BY –
DR. SASHANK SHEKHAR Tushar Verma
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR Enrolment No.-210101158
(BASICS OF LEGISLATION) B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University 1st Semester, Section ‘B’

1|Page
 CERTIFICATE
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I (TUSHAR VERMA) HAVE SUCESSFULLY
SUBMITTED MY PROJECT ON, “REGULATION OF RIGHT TO DIE &
EUTHANASIA” UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF DR. SHASHANK SHEKHAR WITH
UTMOST SINCERITY AND DILLIGENCE I HEREBY SUBMIT THIS PROJECT FOR
MY ACADEMIC GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT.

SECTION- B

FIRST SEMESTER, FIRST YEAR

2|Page
 DECLARATION

I HEREBY DECLARE THAT I HAVE MADE THIS PROJECT UNDER GUIDANCE OF

MY LEARNED PROFESSOR DR. SHASHANK SHEKHAR AND ONLY USED
BOOKS AND VARIOUS OTHER AUTHORITIES FOR ANALYSIS AND MADE THIS
WITH DUE DILLIGENCE AND FOCUS. IF ANY MISTAKE FOUND KINDLY
APPRISE ME OF THE SAME.

THANKING YOU,

TUSHAR VERMA

3|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Mr. Shashank Shekhar
who gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic “Right to die”,
he has been constantly supporting me, guiding me and helping me with all my queries and
difficulties regarding this project since its fledging stage. Without his help this project would
have been a Herculean task.

Through this topic I get the opportunity to do lots of research, this result in so much new
knowledge which would help me further for new projects. I would also like to thank my
friends and seniors who helped me a lot in finalizing this project within the limited time
frame and make this project even better.

I would like thank the librarians of Dr. Madhu Limaye library for helping me find the correct
resources for my research and for helping me enrich my knowledge.

I know that despite my sincerest efforts some discrepancies might have crept in, I hope and
believe that I would be pardoned for the same.

Thank You,

TUSHAR VERMA

4|Page
 PREFACE:
Right to die, despite having the word right this right has not accepted in India in way in which other rights
has accepted by Indian people. In fact not only in India but also all over the world this right is not as much
acceptable nor exercisable as other rights for example freedom of speech and expression. The reason behind
the non- acceptance of this right is having negative in nature. Also demand to declare this right as a part of
fundamental right was raising since many years ago but the success regarding this achieved in March 2018
when Supreme Court in its judgment Said the same thing which was demanding by many people, some
prominent and literature people, this leads to right to die which was roaming from many years get a home
under Article 21 and become the part of fundamental right.

In this project researcher has taken a full view on right to die. Researcher starts with the introduction of right
to die in which he talks about its definition on paper, and talks about reason that when and why it should be
exercised by people. Further it explains the types through which we can exercise our right to die, it also
explains the term related to right to die for example living will.

Next, to explain the history of right to die in India researcher has analysed the cases related to die through
which Supreme Court came on the conclusion in March 2018, in Common Cause v. Union of India.

In next chapter, researcher instead of analysing something takes the argumentative tone to give reasons that
why right die should include in fundamental rights under Article 21 of Indian constitution.

Next, to proof the same thing as abovementioned researcher gave the status of right to die in other countries
for example, Germany, USA, Belgium and many other countries. This helps to support the argument that
has raised by researcher in chapter three which is why right to die should in Article 21 of Indian
constitution.

In final researcher gave the conclusion of this project in which he also gave the hint of precaution that needs
to be carry regarding this right and gave some examples which is indicating that right to die can be used by
people if extra care or precaution would not be there, and here researcher also end this project.

5|Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS: PAGE NO:
1. CERTIFICATE---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2
2. DECLARATIOIN------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3
3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4
4. PREFACE---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5
5. TABLE OF CONTENTS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6
6. CHAPTER 1-RIGHT TO DIE----------------------------------------------------------------------------------7
6.1. INTEODUCTION-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7
6.2. BRIEF EXPLANATION OF TYPES OF EUTHANASIA--------------------------------------------8
6.3. PASSIVE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8
6.4. ACTIVE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8
6.5. VOLUNTARY & INVOLUNTARY----------------------------------------------------------------------8
6.6. LIVING BILL-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9
6.7. ASSISTED SUICIDE----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9
7. CHAPTER 2-CASE ANALYSIS-------------------------------------------------------------------------------10
7.1. MAHARASHTRA V MARUTI SHRIPATI DUBAL--------------------------------------------------10
7.2. GIAN KAUR V STATE OF PUNJAB--------------------------------------------------------------------11
7.3. P. RATHANAM V UNION OF INDIA-------------------------------------------------------------------12
7.4. COMMON CAUSE V UNION OF INDIA---------------------------------------------------------------13
7.5. GUIDELINES TO OPT EUTHANASIA------------------------------------------------------------------15
8. CHAPTER 3- RIGHT TO DIE IN OTHER COUNTRIES---------------------------------------------------16
9. CHAPTER 4- WHY RIGHT TO DIE IN ART 21? -----------------------------------------------------------17
10. CONCLUSION------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18
11. BIBLIOGRAPGY---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19

6|Page
CHAPTER ONE-RIGHT TO DIE:
1-INTRODUCTION: The Greek philosopher Epicurus suggested that “it is possible to provide
security against other things, but as far as death is concerned, we men all live in a city without walls”1. Right
to Die which was a limited peripheral issue in the 1940s which now is developed controversial issue in the
1980s and the 1990s. The reason for this issue to gain so much media and public opinion and attention is
that it is becoming fashionable for some time now in many aspects of the public to demand what they need
as a matter of right. During past decade we have heard claims of right to education, right to health and care,
right to employment, right to privacy, right to be born and right to not have been born. And now we are
faced with n numbers of cases demanding “Right to Die”.
This claim has surfaces in the context of changed circumstances and concerns regarding the end of life.
Thanks on part to the power of medicine to preserve and prolong life, many of us are fated to end our life.
Thanks to the respirator and other powerful technologies that can hold comatose and other severely
debilitated patients on this side of the line between life and death2. The idea of right to die emphasis upon
the idea that one’s life and one’s body is his own’s and he must have control over the decision he makes
regrading his life weather to live or die. And there is no need of interference by the state to prevent his/her to
exercise his/her right.
The exercise of tight to die can be classified into three categories: suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia.
To claim the Right to Die through euthanasia these are of 4 types classified below:
1-passive euthanasia
2-Active euthanasia
3-Voluntary euthanasia
4-Involuntary euthanasia

Right to die is one of the most dynamic rights in India if not most. Cases by cases changes in its character
had done by Indian judiciary whether it was state of Maharashtra v. Maruti Shripati Dubal case in which
high court stated Section 309 of IPC is ultra virus of Articles 14 and 21 of constitution of India to Gian Kaur
v. State of Punjab in this case Court stated that Section 309 is not ultra virus of Article 14 and 21. Every
time India Courts over ruled its earlier decision in following case this indicates the sensitive nature of right
to die but a major decision had taken by Supreme Court in March 2018, when Supreme Court in its historic
decision legalize passive euthanasia and approve living will after a petition filed by Common Cause a
NGO. In the decision of Supreme Court, right to die declared fundamental right under Article 21.

1
Dimitriadis, Haris. Death Is Nothing to Fear. Independent Publisher, 2019.
2
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3562279
7|Page
 2-DIFFERENT TYPES OF EUTHANASIA:

1-Passive Euthanasia- Passive euthanasia is the intentional ending of one person’s life by another,
motivated solely by the best interest of the person who dies, through the deliberate withholding of a life-
preserving substance or procedure.
In more simple terms let’s take an example that when the doctor not does or stop doing treatment which was
necessary to keep him alive.

2-Active Euthanasia-Active euthanasia is the intentional ending of life of the other person. This
happens solely due to the presence of some ulterior motive. It also happens when someone intentionally
gives life ending substances or procedure. It is mainly considered a crime in many countries including India.

One of the famous examples of it is death of Thomas Youk, 52 who was suffering with amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis. On 17th September, 1998 Dr. Jack Kevokian his concerning doctor videotaped himself was
administering a lethal medication to Thomas Youk.

Later, This video tape was broadcasted by CBS less than a week later. Concerned authorities charged Dr.
Jack Kevokian under a first- degree premeditated murder, criminal assistance of a suicide.
It was apparent that dose was given to Youk at his request; and also that Youk was terminally ill.
Nevertheless jury found Kevokrian guilty of second- degree murder in 1999. He was sent to prison.

And in some case the intentional killing is not considered illegal as stated by the ‘Hoge Raad that the doctor
will be exempt of the liability if he committed the act of shortening the life in case of emergency’3.

3-Voluntary Euthanasia- when a person wants to die and gives consent for itself. For example-

 Asking help for dying

 Ask to stop the medical treatment, or life support machines
 Simply deciding to die
 refuse to take food and fluids

3
Hoge Raad, 27 November, 1984, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie= NJ 1985, No. 106
8|Page
 4-Involuntary Euthanasia- Involuntary Euthanasia occurs when the person wants to live but he is
killed anyway. In most of the case this type of euthanasia is considered illegal but in some cases it
can be made legal an example-
Imagine the case of Chernobyl disaster 600 fire fighters were caught up with the atomic radiations
and soon there bodies were melting from the inside, skin dripping like melted wax and a feeling of
sitting in the fire in the one’s who were exposed to high radiations in this case the doctors killed the
patients to ease their pain because their deaths were inevitable and to eliminate chances of further
infecting the other with radiation4.

Some other terms related to Euthanasia-

Living will- it is a document that made by person in which he stats about himself that in future if he
reach at the stage of medical condition persistent vegetative state or condition of terminally ill or any
situation in which there is certainty that he cannot live for more days and in whatever days he will be
continuously under pain and have no situation to speak so on basis of this document doctor can grant
passive euthanasia to him. It also calls as “directive to physicians or advance directive”.

Assisted Suicide- Physician assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia both has been covered
in Assisted Suicide. The only difference between them is of degree of intention and behaviour while
in physician assisted suicide it includes providing of any lethal to patient on his consent while
voluntary active euthanasia entails the physician taking an active role in carrying out the patient’s
request, and usually involves intravenous delivery of a lethal substance.

CHAPTER TWO
4
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html
9|Page
CASE ANALYSIS RELATED TO RIGHT TO DIE:
1-Maharashtra v Maruti Shripati Dubal [1987](1) BomCR 499: In this case the matter
was that the petitioner is the police constable to the Bombay city police force. In 1981 he met with an
accident and suffered some head injuries and on later diagnose it was discovered that he was suffering
from schizophrenia and was given shock treatment and some heave tranquilizers and he continued to
take them even today.

And the incident in question here which has given rise to impugned criminal prosecution occurred 27 th
April where he tried to commit suicide outside the office Bombay municipal corporation just because
delay in the disposal of his wife’s application for the license for the stall of the vending vegetable near
Coba market. And the offence of S.309 of IPC was registered against him.

Since the constitutionality of S.309 was under challenge during the petition the court then stayed the
present prosecution and all the cases of S.309 in all the lower courts of India.

Mr. Bhat the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner put forward three prepositions before the court. He
argued that since the validity of S.309 is violative of Art 14 and Art 21 of the constitution. The second
contention was that the section treats all the cases of suicide equally and prescribes the punishment for them
arbitrarily by the same measures. Hence the section is violative of Article 14. His last contention was that
assuming attempt to commit suicide was an offence, the punishment is barbaric, cruel, irrational and self-
defeating.

Shri Govilkar, the learned counsel on the behalf of the union of India, countered the first submission by
stating that Art 14 and Art 21 neither as such create or recognize right to life as such. All they do is
preventing the state by depriving any individual his right to life and this is just a reasonable procedure
established by law. And his counter for the second contention was that the state is not obliged to make any
classification for the offenders, and therefore the Art 14 of the constitution is not violative as regard to the
second submission. To the last submission he argued that it is prerogative of the state to determine the
quantum of the punishment and sentence prescribed for the offence and hence it cannot be said barbaric,
cruel, irrational at all it is done to deter the prospective offenders to make similar type of offence in near
future.

And the court stated that it is not and cannot be seriously ignored that the fundamental rights have positive
as well as their negative aspects. For example like right to freedom of speech and expression also includes
right not to speak and remain silent, similarly the freedom of association and movement likewise includes
right not to join any association or to move anywhere. If this is so logically as sated under Art 21 right to life
will also include right not to live or not forced to live.

10 | P a g e
Following these arguments the court came to decide that it will quash the criminal prosecution against
Maruti Sripati Dubal and Section 309penal code 1860, which makes attempt to commit suicide a criminal
offence is ultra-vires and is violative of the Art 14 and 21 of the Indian constitution and therefore stuck
down. All prosecutions launched under S.309 Penal code, pending in any courts of the state of Maharashtra
shall stand quashed.

2-Gian Kaur v. state of Punjab:

In this case petitioner Gian Kaur and her husband Harbhajan Singh were convicted by the trial court under
Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and each were sentenced to 6 years and a fine of rs2000 or R.I for 9
months for abetting the suicide by Kulwant Kaur. On appeal to high court the sentence of both have been
maintained as it is was as decided by the court but the sentence of Gian Kaur has been reduced to 3 years.

One of the points directly raised is the inclusion of the 'right to die' within the ambit of Article 21 of the
Constitution, to contend that any person assisting the enforcement of the 'right to die' is merely assisting in
the enforcement of the fundamental right under Article 21 which cannot be penal; and Section 306, IPC
making that act punishable, therefore, violates Article 21.

In response court appoints Shri Fali S. Nariman and Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, Senior Advocates to appear as
amicus curiae in this matter.

Both amicus curiae supported the decision given in P. Rathinam v. Union of India and concluded that
section 306 and 309 IPC both are unconstitutional but where Fali S. Nariman declared it on the basis that it
violates Article 21 while Soli J. Sorabjee on the basis that it violate Article 21 as well as 14.

The court said that reason given in P. Rathinam for Article 21 which is every fundamental Rights carry
positive as well as negative aspects which was itself carried from R.C.Cooper v. Union of India country was
"misplaced", that might have arisen on account of superficial comparison between the freedoms, ignoring
the inherent distinction between one elementary right and ,the other. it's been argued that the negative facet
of the proper to measure would mean the top or extinction of the positive facet, and so, it's not the
suspension intrinsically of the proper as is within the case of 'silence' or 'non- association' and 'no
movement'. it's additionally been declared that the proper to life stands on totally different footing from
different rights as all different rights square measure derived from the proper to measure.

Further, Court said that one can say that because he don’t have as much money as others have or he is not
living his life in pleasure. Or a person might starts thinks that he has enjoyed his life full now he want to
enjoy beyond life or one might say he want to talk with god so rather than enjoying right to life we want to
enjoy our right to die . It will be result in big chaos in society.

11 | P a g e
Through these reasons court held that Article 21 does not violate through Section 309 and to reach at the
conclusion where Article 14 violated by section 309 court gave the same reason that was given in P.
Rathinam case which was itself had taken from Chenna Jagdeeshara v. State of Andhra Pradesh ( has
mentioned above in P. Rathinam case analysis).
In his final judgment Court said that section 309 does not violate Article 21 and 14. Therefore Section 309
IPC is constitutional and when it is then Section 306 is also constitutional.5

3-P. Rathanam v Union of India [1994 ]AIR 1844: Art 21 has many of the positive aspects of it
and it is not merely negative in its reach. And a speech given at the international conference of health and
Polity, Ethics and Human values held at Delhi in 1986 referred that challenge to S.309 being violative of Art
14 is not sustainable. As S.309 treats different types of suicide in same measures irrespective of the
circumstances the attempt being made. The nature, gravity and extent can be taken care by the tailoring the
punishment given. This view was approved by Chenna Jagdeeshwara v State of Andhra Pradesh [1987]
Indlaw AP 7 but Maharashtra v Maruti Shripati Dubal [1987](1) BomCR 499 overruled this point stating
that Right to live of Art 21 can be said that the trail of the right not to live a forced life . though the negative
aspects of the rights may not be an inferable analogy of the right conferred under Art 19.

There is no justification to the analogy of the negative aspect of right to live under Art 21 i.e to destroy the it
can be read under Art 21, state can easily embark on the idea to encourage genocide.

Apart from the aforesaid judicial thinking on the matter of the permissibility of punishing a man for
attempting to commit suicide, there are proponents that allow euthanasia (mercy killing) should be permitted
by law. The court propose the distinction between the act of a person taking his own life and the act of the
person allowed to bring an end to the life of the third person.

A comment have been made that the distinction made by the majority between the attempt to suicide and
euthanasia because of the difference in their motive and mental attitude6.

"It is ironic that Section 309 IPC still continues to be on out Penal code. ... Strange is that in the time of
followers of Euthanasia, suicide should be punishable. Instead the society hanging its belief in shame that
there should be such social tension that a young man (the desire of tomorrow) need to be pushed to suicide
compounds its insufficiency through treating the boy as a criminal. Instead of sending the younger boy to
psychiatric health facility it gleefully sends him to mingle with criminals.... The continuance of Section 309
IPC is an anachronism unworthy of a human society like ours. Medical clinics for such social misfits

5
MANU/SC/0335/1996
6
Nixon. Suffolk University Law Review (XXVI). number2 ed., vol. 25, suffolk university, 1991.

12 | P a g e
sincerely however police and prisons never. The very concept is revolting. This idea seeks to satisfy the
mission of social traces of modem city and aggressive economic system through ruthless suppression of
mere signs this try can simplest bring about failure. Need is for humane, civilised and socially oriented
outlook and penology.... No wonder so long as society refuses to face this reality its coercive machinery will
1 1985 Cri LJ 931 :(1985) 2 DMC 153 (Del) invoke the provision like Section 309 IPC which has no
justification to continue to remain on the statute book."7

The Bombay high court held S.309 violative of Art 14 majorly because of the two reasons. First which act or
acts or series of acts will constitute attempt to suicide, where to draw line is not known some attempts may
be serious while other may not be as serious as such. And another reason given was that S.309 treats all
attempts to commit suicide with same measures without referring to the circumstances in which attempts are
made.

Therefore the Supreme Court held that Section 309 deserves to be effaced from the statue book to humanize
our penal law. It is cruel and irrational to punish a person who suffered from agony and ignominy due to
failure to commit suicide. Further the act of committing suicide do not cause any harm to the society in large
where in first instance the interference of the state with the personal liberty of the persons concerned.

4-Common cause v Union of India [2018] Indlaw SC 178:

This decision also knows as ‘living will case’, ‘passive euthanasia’ or ‘euthanasia case’. In regard to an
individual’s right to die most important conclusive results came in the petition that was filed by an NGO
Common Cause to declare right to die a fundamental right under Article 21 this petition’s judgment come
out on 9th march 2018.

NGO Common Cause filed his petition in 2005 seeking permission to allow executing living will for passive
euthanasia for terminally ill person. On 16th January 2006 court ask Delhi Medical Counsil to file documents
on passive euthanasia. From 23rd January 2014 onwards that time chief justice P.Sathasivam starts final
hearing. Further, court found inconsistencies in earlier decisions and refers PIL to a constitutional bench.

From 15th July 2014 constitutional bench start hearing and on 9 th march 2018 the court gave its judgment in
which it declare Article 21 Right to life also includes right to die with dignity and legalize passive
euthanasia through ‘living will’ . In its decision court said that - Article 21 which from the beginning of
constitution aims to provide an individual to a quality life it also encompasses sphere individual dignity and
time to time this court is expanding the Article 21 to felicitate every person right to life and personal liberty
with dignity.

7
State Of Bihar And Ors vs Dr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha And Ors on 15 November, 1989
13 | P a g e
Further court explained that, “A failure to legally recognize advance medical directives may amount to non-
facilitation of the right to smoothen the dying process and the right to live with dignity” and at a time when
advanced principle making way in other jurisdiction and has gained legally recognition in many countries
through legislation or in some countries through judicial pronouncements.

Further, the court said that it has given a high importance to sanctity of life which has defined as, “The
phrase “sanctity of life” reflects the belief that, because people are made in God’s image, human life has an
inherently sacred attribute that should be protected and respected at all times”. While God gave humanity
the authority to kill and eat other forms of life, the murdering of other human beings is expressly forbidden,
with the penalty being death. But when patient is terminally ill, or in persistent vegetative state or no hope of
recovery at that stage advance principle and right to self-determination will be given preference. The court
also addressed situations where a patient was terminally ill, but had not issued an advance directive. In such
situations it held that the consent of the patient’s close family, subject to the supervision of and concurrence
by trained medical personnel, would substitute for the advance directive. These given patient situation can
override the state interest.

The court also said that in this advance technological world when medical technology itself touching limit of
sky and it has become very easy to keep one alive despite having knowledge that he will not recover it not
only violates his right to life with dignity but also taking the resources of which other could take benefit.
The court held that individuals have the right to engage with technological systems on their own terms. The
chief justice said that, ““the recognition of the freedom of competent adults to make choices about their
medical care necessarily encompasses recognition of the right to make choices since individual free choice
and self-determination are themselves fundamental constituents of life.”

The court also stated that a person who is suffering from incurable disease it’s not only him but also his
family that affected by it and despite knowing that all effort that has been put him alive are giving him just
but they have to endure all expenditure whether their financially eligible or not. Due to society custom
compulsion because it will be looked as a crime in society that there was probability to keep him alive but
they didn’t do that. But through passive euthanasia it will be easy for these type problems facing family.

14 | P a g e
GUIDELINES TO OPT FOR PASSIVE EUTHANASIA:

The court issued guidelines that should be followed in the implementation of passive euthanasia through
living will which has been defined as-

Living bill is a document that person uses as an instrument in term of his medical care where he specifies his
treatment that he want or not in case he is not able to communicate to doctors, is also known as advance
directive. It only can be made by sound mind and healthy person and he should at the time of making living
will was not under any compulsion or compelling. It should be in writing and clearly states the when
medical treatment should be removed or which specific medical treatment should not be used which will just
delay the dying process.

In the case of an unconscious person who suffers from a terminal illness or a life-threatening injury, doctors
and hospitals consult his or her living will to determine whether or not the patient wants life-sustaining
treatment, such as assisted breathing or tube feeding. In the absence of a living will, decisions about medical
care become the responsibility of the spouse, family members or other third parties. These individuals may
be unaware of the patient’s desires, or they may not wish to follow the patient’s unwritten, verbal directives.

It was stated that document should be made in presence of two witnesses and signed by jurisdictional
judicial magistrate of first class (JMFC). The JMFC shall preserve one copy of the document in his office
and shall forward one copy to the registry of the jurisdictional of district court for being preserved.
Passive euthanasia will be applicable in only those cases where the patient in condition that there is no
chance of his recovery and dying process of his life has already started passive euthanasia will only
smoothing the dying process to reduce the time of his suffering from pain

Next, the court said that after demanding of passive euthanasia on the basis of living will or by patients’ next
friend the physician who is operating will check the patient’s condition and if he satisfied then hospital shall
constitute a medical board consist of three prominent doctors and every doctor have to be at least twenty
years’ experience they will also visit the patient and then will give their opinion if they agree on demand of
euthanasia hospital shall inform the collector. The collector will constitute a medical again consisting of
chief district medical official and three experts doctors. The check the patient if they find situation is not
good then they will convey their decision to JMFC. Then JMFC will visit the patient after examine all
aspect will approve the demand.

15 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 3-:
RIGHT TO DIE IN OTHER COUNTRIES:
As we saw above the situation of Right to die in India as to how it evolved as a matter of the controversial
topic since the 90s and finally the battle won in 2018 when the supreme court make legal passive euthanasia
and struck down S.309 as it was violating Art 14 and 21 of the constitution.

This was the case of India let’s see the what is the status of Right to die in other countries. Many other
countries gives its citizens right to die in the form of passive euthanasia or some in physician assisted
suicide.

The Netherlands is the first country to legalise the implementation of euthanasia in 2002. In 1992 the
(postma case) where the physician was convicted for ending his mother’s life on repetitive request made for
euthanasia by her. While upholding the conviction the court set aside the proper criteria for the doctors to
perform euthanasia and said that the doctors will not be obliged to keep the patient alive against their will.

This criteria was set through various number of cases during 1980s. And finally in 2001 Netherland passed
the law legalizing euthanasia and doctor assisted killing.

But it is not the same case in America, the legality of euthanasia in America is still a matter of debate.
Euthanasia is legal in US but only in 50 states and only after the advice of the doctor. Assisted suicide is
legal in 10 jurisdiction in US. Euthanasia advocacy in US peaked in early 1930s significantly after the
World War 2. The statute is in conflict in Montana, though currently authorised through Montana Supreme
Court ruling in Baxter Vs Montana. The landmark judgment of Airedale NHS Trust v. B land has to be
noted where for the first time in the English history, the right to die was allowed through the withdrawal of
life support systems including food and water. This case placed the authority to decide whether a case is fit
or not for euthanasia in the hands of the Court.

As we move closer to entering the new decade in 2021 Spain became the latest country to legalise
Euthanasia. This law allows the citizens who are terminally ill and have serious and incurable disease are
allowed to opt for choosing to end their lives to prevent them from unbearable pain. Before the law was
passed in Spain helping someone to die was considered illegal and was punishable with a jail term of up to
10 years. Following in the footsteps of Netherlands, Canada, Luxemburg, and Colombia now Portugal’s
parliament had attempted to legalise euthanasia. But following later to legalise euthanasia was declared as

16 | P a g e
unconstitutional by the country’s top court. But it is not the end of the debate like many countries have taken
several years to legalise Right to Die so definitely the same day will come for Portugal also.

CHAPTER 4:
why right to die should include in art 21?

“The bravest thing I ever did was continuing my life when I wanted to die”

The upper quote is written by Juliette Lewis explicitly stating that no man to die want to die unnatural death
that occurs from disease causing unbearable pain in that moment when a man only wishes for clam and
piece in his last moment. The power to control everything you wanted from thinking to speak and to speak
every decision of his life is controlled by him except the choice of death. Therefore a law should not stop a
person from exercising his right.

Since right to die assumes as violation of right to life under Article 21. It clearly states that one cannot be
deprived from his life except procedure established by law (for example death penalty through section 302 Indian
Penal Code) as we all know fundamental rights we provided by our constitution are against states not against any
individual or again self itself, therefore we cannot come to the conclusion that asking for one’s death itself
attracts right to life provision under Article 21.

It means that to live a quality life, express ourselves and have interacted with other human beings.

But if a person who is suffering from some incurable disease or in continuous pain he would not be able to
enjoy his life in above mentioned way so where his dignity will lie? Once Angela Morkel said that when it
comes to human dignity, we cannot make comprises. Therefore there is no interest to deny an individual
from exercising right to die when he is not in position to live his life with human dignity.

Life should never be looked in term of biological means where a person breathing or not but it should be
looked in view where a person’s life is falls under the definition of life expressed by court in Maneka
Gandhi case because It should be noted though that with advancements in technology, even the line between
‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ is being blurred. Medical equipment can keep a person alive even in the absence of
brain function. In the future people may also choose to cryogenically preserve themselves in the hopes of
being revived later. Even if this regarded to be ‘unnatural’ one cannot really conclude whether such people
are ‘alive’ or ‘dead’. Therefore it ought to be the individual’s perception that is taken into account.

17 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION

We have come to a point where we almost have analysed the situation of right to die in our country. This
project starts with the introduction of what is Right to die to give the basic understanding to the people who
are not familiar with it. This paper also analyses various famous cases regarding right to die and its journey
from where it started and now it is declared a fundamental right under Art 21 right to life.

This paper also discuss the procedure which a person can follow to get passive euthanasia as in 2018
through the case Common Cause v. Union Of India that right to die is a fundamental right under Art 21 of
the constitution. The court has specified a set of guidelines to avail this right so as to it might not be misused
by the citizens. For example, The Netherlands which was also the first country to legalize passive euthanasia
faced a fierce debate in the country when a 29 years girl named Aurelia Brouwers committed suicide just
after legalization of passive euthanasia four hours earlier this she posted on face book that, “I am getting
ready from trip now”. Thank you so much for everything. I will be no longer available from now. This is
clearly indicates that after passing of the act that legalized passive euthanasia she was encouraged from this
also her was not under the provision of act and nor was legal.

Court came up with these guidelines so as to prevent the misuse of this fundamental right because many a
times family member with the help of doctors tries to inherit the property for some other fruitful reasons
after the death of the patient.

Indeed, right to die is a right which may be often a times be misused but on the same hand it is something
which can be very useful in eliminating the never-ending pain of the patients diagnosed with incurable
disease.

18 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Brassington, Iain. “What Passive Euthanasia Is.” BMC Medical Ethics, 14 May 2020,

bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-020-00481-7#:

%7E:text=Passive%20euthanasia%20is%20the%20ending,substance%20or%20life

%2Dpreserving%20procedure.

 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1174693/
 “Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident - Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.”

Canada Nuclear Safety Commission, Aug. 2018,

nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/health/health-effects-chernobyl-accident.cfm.

 https://scc-nlul.refread.com/Members/BrowseResult.aspx
 “Just a Moment...” Indiankanoon, 26 Apr. 1994, indiankanoon.org/doc/490515.

 Wikipedia contributors. “Legality of Euthanasia.” Wikipedia, 20 Sept. 2021,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_euthanasia.

 BBC News. “Spain Passes Law Allowing Euthanasia.” BBC News, 18 Mar. 2021,

www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56446631.

 “Luxembourg | Patients Rights Council.” Luxembourg Patients Right Council, 24 Mar.

2009, www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/luxembourg.

 Rachels, James. “Active and Passive Euthanasia.” De Gruyter, 31 May 2019,

www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781478004356-039/html.

 Griffiths, John. “Euthanasia and Law in the Netherlands.” Library Oapen, 1 Apr.

2020, library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/35082.

19 | P a g e
  “Euthanasia: The Way We Do It, the Way They Do It.” ScienceDirect, 1 July 1991,

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0885392491900537.

 https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/0885392491900537?
token=F0DF0D2B668BC498FF86F180A48851A03F04F5C50F29F1388DF26BEFF6
E817A34596400728C1E50D8509827D6A62C6F3&originRegion=eu-west-
1&originCreation=20210925172148
 HeinOnline. “About.” HeinOnline, 8 Mar. 2021, heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?

handle=hein.journals/ilmed26&div=8&id=&page=.

 Choudhary, Amit Anand. “Here Are the SC Guidelines on Passive Euthanasia.” The

Times of India, 9 Mar. 2018, timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/here-are-the-sc-

guidelines-on-passive-euthanasia/articleshow/63236173.cms.

20 | P a g e