CASE ANALYSIS OF GIAN KAUR V.

STATE OF PUNJAB 1

SUBMITTED BY: ANUSHI NAYAK

ILS LAW COLLEGE, PUNE
INTERN (2nd YEAR)
MOB: 7905212551; 8669320835
G-MAIL: anushinayak1691@gmail.com
1
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab[ 1996] AIR 946,[1996] 2 SCC 648
GIAN KAUR V. STATE OF PUNJAB, 21ST MARCH,1996.

A BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

In 1996, Harbans Singh and his spouse Gian Kaur were charged for abetting the suicide of their
daughter-in-law Kulwant Singh. They were accused of ruthlessly pouring kerosene on her with
an obvious intention of seeing her dead. This was initially challenged by the Trial Court. On
further appeal, the matter was placed before the high court. The conviction of the appellants was
censured on the ground that section 306 and 309 of IPC are unconstitutional. To elucidate,
Section 306 of IPC punishes an individual who abets the commission of suicide, while section
309 of IPC punishes someone who attempts to commit suicide. The first argument advanced to
challenge the constitutional validity of Section 306 of IPC rested on the decision in P. Rathinam
vs. Union of India and Anr., 1994), by a Bench of two learned Judges of the Court
wherein Section 309 of IPC had been held to be unconstitutional as it was shown that it
violates Article 21 of' the Constitution. It was thereby urged that ‘right to die' being included
in Article 21 of the Constitution as held in P. Rathinam declaring Section 309 of IPC to be
unconstitutional, so keeping this is in view, any person abetting the commission of suicide of
another is merely assisting in the enforcement of the victim’s fundamental right under Article
21; and, therefore, Section 306 of IPC penalizing assisted suicide equally violates Article 21.
Hence the major disputation involved in the case was between article 21 of the Indian
Constitution and section 306 and ultimately section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus the point
of conflict before the court was that if the principal offense of attempting to commit suicide is
void as being unconstitutional vis-à-vis Art.21, then how abetment can thereof be punishable
under Sec. 306, I.P.C., 1860. However by the end, the appellant’s arguments failed to persuade
the five judge bench comprising of Jagdish Saran Verma, G.N. Ray, N.P. Singh, Faizan Uddin
and G.T. Nanavati JJ that section 309 violated article 21 of the Constitution of India. In view of
the above, the constitutionality of section 309 of the I.P.C, which makes “attempt to suicide” an
offence, was upheld, overruling the judgment in P. Rathinam’s Case. The Court overruled the
decision of the Division Bench in the above-stated case and had put an end to the controversy
and ruled that Art.21 is a provision guaranteeing the protection of life and personal liberty and by
no stretch of imagination can ‘extinction of life’ be read to be included in the protection of life.
Thus both Gian Kaur and her husband Harbans Singh were convicted under section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code.

PERTINENT FACTS OF THE CASE

In this case, Gian Kaur and her husband Harbans Singh were accused of committing the offence
of abetting the suicide of their daughter-in-law, Kulwant Kaur. For this purpose, the Trial Court
convicted them under Section 306 of The Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, they were punished
with rigorous imprisonment for a term of six years each and were asked to pay the fine amount
worth Rs. 2,000/-, and in case of non-payment of the fine within the specified time, an additional
nine months of rigorous imprisonment was said to be enforced. Nevertheless, the appellants
thereafter made an appeal at the High Court, who reiterated the Lower Court’s decision of
declaring the appellants rightly convicted of the said crime. Also the sentence of Gian Kaur alone
was reduced from six years to rigorous imprisonment to three years. Soon after that, the
Appellants then approached the Supreme Court through the Special Leave Petition against their
conviction sentence under Section 306 of IPC.

ISSUES RAISED

 Whether or not Article 21 that talks about ‘Right to life’ also includes ‘Right to die’?
 Is Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 constitutionally valid?

 Does Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 violate Article 14 and 21 of the Indian
Constitution?
PETITIONER'S ARGUMENTS
 Section 306 of IPC must be held constitutionally invalid with reference to the case of P.
Rathinam v. Union of India, which importantly declared Section 309 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 as unconstitutional as it violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
 It was argued that having been declared in P. Rathinam case that `right to die’ falls within
the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution, and that any person assisting the enforcement
of the `right to die’ is simply assisting the enforcement of Article 21, so following this it
cannot be penal. Hence, it was contended that Section 306 of IPC, which makes that act
punishable, therefore, ultimately violates Article 21.
 Section 309 of IPC is unconstitutional since it violates Article 14 of the Constitution on
the grounds that the provision is discriminatory & arbitrary.

RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENTS

 The Respondent i.e in this case, the State wanted the decision of the Trial Court and the
High Court to be upheld by the Supreme Court.
 It was strongly argued that Section 306 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 talks about the
abetment of attempt to suicide which is an independent provision on its own and hence it
should not rely for validation on Section 309 of the same act.
 Section 306 is constitutional and it does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution. It was
contended that the ruling of the case P. Rathinam v. Union of India should be struck
down since Section 309 of IPC is also constitutionally valid.
 ‘Right to life’ is inherently inconsistent with the ‘right to die’ and the right to die cannot
be said to fall within the ambit of Article 21.
 There is no merit in the appellant’s arguments based on Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution.

PRECEDENT SET BY P. RATHINAM V. UNION OF INIDA (1994)

The major question that was considered and answered, in Rathinam v. Union of

India was whether the offence of ‘attempt to commit suicide’ under Section 309 IPC
 should be retained or abolished. The Court opted for its abolition and Section 309 is no
more part of the IPC.  In this context, the Court found that an individual by nature of life
itself has a right to die. This right was said to arise from the notion that an individual has
autonomy over himself and his existence.
The Supreme Court thereby, gave emphasis to the autonomy of the individual asserting
in the process, however, that there was no question of attempt to commit suicide being
against morality or public policy, the former being a variable concept and the latter
being an ambiguous concept. 
However, this precedent was set aside in Gyan Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1996.

OVERVIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT

In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, a five-judge Constitutional Bench held that ‘Right to Life’ as
stated under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, does not include the ‘Right to die’. The
Supreme Court emphasized that ‘Right to life’ also includes the ‘right to a dignified life’ till a
person reaches the point of death. This must resonate with a dignified and natural procedure of
death. By saying this, the Court meant that the ‘Right to die’ with dignity at the end of an
individual’s life should not be confused with the ‘Right to die’ in an unnatural manner of death.
It was asserted that any act accelerating the process of natural death of an individual is not legal
under Article 21.Hence the appellant’s contention that Section 309 of The Indian Penal Code is
unconstitutional, since it violated Article 21 of the Constitution was rejected. Moreover, the court
did not also regard the petitioner’s contention regarding the constitutional validity of Section 309
based on Article 14.The question of whether Section 306 of The Indian Penal Code is
constitutional or not was also answered by the Apex Court. The Court declared that ‘assisted
attempt to commit suicide’ and ‘assisted suicide’ are punishable for obvious reasons in the larger
interest of society. The aim of such a provision is to curtail the innate danger present in its
absence. Thus, the decision of P. Rathinam v. Union of India was struck down, making Section
306 and Section 309 of Indian Penal Code constitutionally valid and declaring the accused
punishable for abetment of suicide.
AMBIT OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
 Article 21 states that:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a  procedure
established by law.”
This fundamental right is at the heart of the Indian Constitution. Some even call it “the most
organic and progressive provision in our living constitution”. According to Bhagwati J. article
21 “embodies a constitutional value of supreme importance in a democratic society.”
Iyer, J., has characterized Article 21 as “the procedural magna carta protective of life and
liberty.

‘RIGHT TO LIFE’
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.” 2 The ‘right to life’ is
undoubtedly the most basic and important of all existing rights. On one hand, all other rights add
meaning to the ‘life’ in question but on the other, they universally depend on the pre-requisite of
‘existence of life’ itself for their operation. ‘Right to Life’ is of most importance among all rights
since none of the other rights would have any value or utility without it.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 provides that,
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law.”
“Life in Article 21 of the Constitution is not merely the physical act of breathing. It does not
connote mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider meaning
which includes right to live with human dignity, right to livelihood, right to health, right to
pollution free air, etc.”
Right to life is basic to our very existence without which we cannot live and it includes all those
aspects of life, which go to make a man’s life meaningful, dignified, and worth living. It is the
only article in the Indian Constitution that is open to the widest possible interpretation. Under the
shadow of Article 21, almost all rights have found shelter, growth and nourishment.
In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh3, the Supreme Court quoted and held that:
“By the term “life” as here used something more is meant than mere animal existence. The
inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed.

2
Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948
3
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttarpradesh [1963] AIR 1295,[1964] 1 SCR 332
The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by amputation of an armored leg or
the pulling out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the
soul communicates with the outer world.”
In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration4, the Supreme Court re-approved the above observations
and held that the “right to life” includes the right to lead a healthy life so as to enjoy all faculties
of the human body in their best conditions.

RIGHT TO LIVE WITH HUMAN DIGNITY

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India5, the Apex Court elucidated Art. 21 and held that the right
to live is not simply a physical right but it is also said to include within its ambit the right to live
with human dignity. Elaborating this, the Court in Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of
Delhi6, held that:
“The right to live includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it,
viz., the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head
and facilities for reading writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about
and mixing and mingling with fellow human beings and must include the right to basic
necessities the basic necessities of life and also the right to carry on functions and activities as
constitute the bare minimum expression of human self.”
Similarly in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India7 Article 21 was said to be ‘the heart of
fundamental rights’. In this light, Bhagwati J. observed:
“It is the fundamental right of everyone in this country… to live with human dignity free from
exploitation. This right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath
from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39
and Articles 41 and 42 and at the least, therefore, it must include protection of the health and
strength of workers, men and women, and of the tender age of children against abuse,
opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of
freedom and dignity, educational facilities, just and humane conditions of work and maternity

4
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration [1980] AIR 1579,[1980] 2 SCR 557
5
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978] AIR 597,[1978] 2 SCR 621
6
Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi [1981] AIR 746,[1981] 2 SCR 516
7
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [1984 ] AIR 802,[1984] 2 SCR 67
relief.These are the minimum requirements which must exist in order to enable a person to live
with human dignity and no State neither the Central Government nor any State Government-has
the right to take any action which will deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic
essentials.”
Following all this, in Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India 8, the non-payment
of minimum wages to the small workers was considered to be the denial of their right to live with
basic human dignity which further was said to violate Article 21 of the Constitution.

DOES ‘RIGHT TO DIE’ EXIST?

Art. 21 states that a person has the right to live a dignified life. But the question that always
parallels this declaration is if a person has a right to die?
This unavoidable and conflicting question was first placed before the High Court of Bombay
in State of Maharashtra v. Maruti Sripati Dubal.  The pronounced judgment by the Court held
that the right to life as given under Article 21 also includes right to die. Section 309 of the IPC,
down that provides punishment for an attempt to commit suicide by a person was struck down.
On similar lines, in P. Rathinam v. Union of India 9, a two-judge Division Bench of the Apex
Court, supported the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Maruti Sripati Dubal’s Case and
held that the not only right to life is enshrined in Art. 21 but also in it is included an inherent
right to not live a forced life. The court also declared that “attempt to commit suicide is in reality
a cry for help and not for punishment.”
The above decision was later reviewed by a full Bench of the Court in Gian Kaur v. State of
Punjab. The court observed:
“……’Right to life’ is a natural right embodied in Article 21 but suicide is an unnatural
termination or extinction of life and, therefore, incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of
right to life”

JURISPRUDENCE ON THE ISSUE OF ‘RIGHT TO DIE’

8
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India [1982] AIR 1473, [1983] 1 SCR 456
9
P. Rathinam v. Union of India [1994] AIR 1844, [1994 ] 3 SCC 394
 LAW COMMISSION'S REPORT ON EUTHANASIA, 2006

In its 196th Report, the Law Commission of India recommended the making of a law to
safeguard terminally ill patients, who refuse medical treatment for some reason or the other, from
the consequences flowing out from Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. The report also
recommended that the doctors doing so on the patient’s behalf, or making the decision for such
patients in their best interests, must be given protection from punishment under Section 306 of
the IPC (abetment of suicide) or Section 299 (culpable homicide).
It was very well clarified in the report that the patient must be suffering from a 'terminal illness'
by virtue of which extreme pain and suffering is caused and it must be ascertained if such a
suffering will inevitably cause the death of the patient.

LAW COMMISSION’S REPORT ON DECRIMINALIZATION OF

ATTEMPT TO COMMIT SUICIDE (2008)

The Law Commission of India in its 210th Report declared Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code
as inhuman. It said that an attempt to commit suicide is a symbolic to a 'diseased condition of the
mind'. It therefore deserves treatment and care, not punishment. Any sort of additional
punishment that is inflicted on a person who has attempted to commit suicide is totally unjust
and inhuman.

ARUNA RAMACHANDRA SHANBAUG V. UNION OF INDIA (2011)10

Ms. Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug was sexually assaulted in 1973. Since then she was in a
Persistent Vegetative State (PVS). It was appealed before the Supreme Court by a legal guardian
of Ms. Shanbaug to direct the hospital to stop feeding her and allow her to die peacefully.
Considering the plea, a three-doctor committee was appointed by the Court in order to examine

10
Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India [1994] 2 SCC 648
the medical condition of Ms. Shanbaug. Although the court did not permit the withdrawal of
medical treatment to Ms. Shanbaug, but it looked into the dimensions of euthanasia thoroughly
and thus allowed the use of passive euthanasia.
The court took the responsibility of defining “passive euthanasia” as ‘withdrawal of treatment to
a patient with a deliberate intention of causing the patient’s death’. It was further held that
passive euthanasia is allowed only if the doctors ensure acting on the basis of ‘notified medical
opinion’ and do so keeping in mind the patient's best interest. Calling for the Parens Patriae
principle (Latin term for "parent of the nation", that is when the Court can step in and serve as a
guardian) it was held that the Court is the ultimate decider of what is best for the patient and
extended this power to the High Courts under Article 226.

COMMON CAUSE V. UNION OF INDIA (2018)11

Common Cause, a registered society wrote to the Ministries of Law & Justice, Health & Family
Welfare, and Company Affairs, in 2002 stating the issue of the right to die with dignity.
Following this, in 2005, Common Cause appealed before the Supreme Court under Article 32,
seeking the declaration that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right under Article 21.
It was also prayed before the Court to direct the Union Government to allow terminally ill
patients to execute 'living wills' for any consented future action in case that there arises a medical
emergency. Common Cause contended that terminally ill patients must not be subjected to
ruthless treatments and that denying them the ‘right to die’ in a dignified manner further extends
their suffering. It was thus prayed before the Court to secure their right to die with dignity, by
permitting such persons to make an informed choice pertaining to their future medical
complications in advance, through a living will. On 9th March 2018, a 5 Judge Bench held that
the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right. Consequently, it was also held that an
individual's right to execute advance medical directives for future reference is nothing but an
assertion of his/her ‘right to bodily integrity and self-determination’.

JUDGEMENT OF GIAN KAUR V. STATE OF PUNJAB AT A GLANCE

11
Common Cause v. Union of India [2018] 5 SCC 1
 Article 21 that talks about ‘Right to Life’ was declared to not include the ‘Right to Die’
within its scope.
 Section 306 and section 309 of IPC were validated as Constitutional.
 Arguments based on article 14 of the Indian Constitution were considered inconsistent
with the major issues of the case.

SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A WAY

FORWARD
A general definition of suicide defines it to be a reaction to the issues that at one point of
time cannot be solved at any cost. It is indeed thought of as one of the final reactions
which a person makes to deal with inner emotional distress. Under Indian Penal Code, the
successful act of committing suicide is punishable under Section 309 of the Indian Penal
Code. The effectiveness of this provision has been at the center of all debates and also
wide open to judicial scrutiny, since very long. Moreover the Constitutional validity of
Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code has been ever since examined by the Apex Court of
India and various High Courts in several cases.
However what one often fails to realize is that suicide is a multifaceted problem and thus
deterrents to this problem must also be dynamic, both in nature and approach. For this
purpose, relatively high degree of commitment and expertise are needed to generate a
national approach, which is relevant to the psychological and interpersonal needs of the
community. In India, suicide prevention is not only a social and public health objective
but also a traditional exercise in the mental health arena. Hence the time is ripe for mental
help professionals to adopt proactive role in suicide prevention. Also, national level
dialogue should opened by the Government on the issue of suicide prevention.
Nevertheless, by its very virtue, human life is the most valuable gift of nature. Therefore,
it should not be taken away through unnatural process like suicide. The judiciary
however, cannot solve this complicated social problem just by one or two decisions. It
will take constant and directed efforts to solve this problem completely. In view of the
aggravating problem of suicide all the three branches of the government i.e. Judiciary,
 Legislature and the Executive, along with the citizens must go hand in hand. Only then,
the problem of suicide can be mitigated.

REFERENCES

 Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab [1996] AIR 946, [1996] SCC 648

 Kharak Singh v. State of Uttarpradesh [1963] AIR 1295, [1964] 1 SCR 332

 Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration [1980] AIR 1579, [1980 ] 2 SCR 557

 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978 ] AIR 597, [1978] 2 SCR 621

 Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi [1981] AIR 746, [1981] 2 SCR 516

 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [1984] AIR 802, [1984] 2 SCR 67

 Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India [1982] AIR 1473, [1983] 1 SCR
456
 State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan [1983] AIR 803, [1983] 3 SCR 327

 P. Rathinam v. Union of India [1994] AIR 1844, [1994] 3 SCC 394

 Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India [1994] 2 SCC 648

 Common Cause v. Union of India [ 2018]  5 SCC 1

 BRIEF ABOUT AUTHOR

Anushi Nayak is pursuing B.A.LLB from ILS Law College, Pune. She is currently interning
under Probono India and is also a Junior Research and Internship Coordinator therein. She is also
working as a legal researcher at Legalfoxes. Her areas of interest include Intellectual Property
Rights and Criminal Law. She is also passionate about various aspects of Human Rights Law.
She has published several articles and research papers on various legal platforms and is always
open to new opportunities.

Read More