ijalr

Trending: Call for Papers Volume 4 | Issue 3: International Journal of Advanced Legal Research [ISSN: 2582-7340]

Menu

GIAN KAUR V. STATE OF PUNJAB – Kumari Asmita

Citation: AIR 1996 SC 946, 1996 SCC (2) 648

Date of Judgement: 21st March, 1996

Appellant: Gian Kaur

Respondent: State of Punjab

Bench:  Jagdish Saran Verma, G.N. Ray, N.P. Singh, Faizan Uddin and G.T. Nanavati JJ

BACKGROUND

Gian Kaur v State of Punjab[1] delves into the constitutional complexities surrounding Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, addressing the abetment to suicide. In this landmark legal proceeding, Gian Kaur and her husband, Harbans Singh, were accused of abetting the suicide of their daughter-in-law. The case explores the intersection of Section 306 with Article 21 of the Constitution, examining the right to life and its implications on assisted suicide. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Gian Kaur has significant ramifications, shaping the discourse on the constitutional validity of laws related to suicide in India.

The first challenge regarding the right to die occurred in Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra[2], where the court, citing Article 21, struck down Section 309. The court argued that the right to life encompasses the right to die, and punishing those who attempt suicide contradicts this principle. Justice P. B. Sawant emphasized the need for psychiatric treatment for suicidal individuals rather than imprisonment.

In State v. Sanjay Kumar Bhatia[3], the Delhi High Court acquitted a youth attempting suicide, urging the removal of Section 309 due to its outdated nature. The court criticized sending individuals in need of psychiatric care to prison cells.

In a landmark case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India[4], the Supreme Court upheld the Maruti Shripati decision, declaring Section 309 unconstitutional under Article 21. The court asserted that individuals cannot be compelled to live against their will, emphasizing the right not to live.

Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab challenges the constitutionality of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The contention was raised based on the previous decision of P. Rathinam vs. Union of Indiathat since the right to die was considered part of Article 21 in the context of Section 309, abetting suicide under Section 306 should be viewed as assisting in the exercise of the victim’s fundamental right.

However, the court rejected this argument. The court upheld the constitutionality of Section 309, which makes the “attempt to suicide” an offense, overturning the judgment in P. Rathinam’s Case.

The court ruled that Article 21 guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty but does not extend to include the “extinction of life.” Consequently, Gian Kaur and Harbans Singh were convicted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

FACTS

This case revolves around Gian Kaur, the petitioner, and her husband, Harbans Singh, who were accused of aiding and abetting the suicide of their daughter-in-law, Kulwant Kaur. In the trial court, both were found guilty under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They were sentenced to six years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 2000 each. Failure to pay the fine would result in an additional nine months of rigorous imprisonment. The accused parties then appealed to the High Court, which upheld the trial court’s ruling. Gian Kaur’s sentence was reduced from six years to three years of rigorous imprisonment. Subsequently, they sought relief through a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court to challenge their convictions under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

ISSUES RAISED

The two primary issues addressed in this case were:

  1. Whether Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is constitutionally valid.
  2. Whether Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, violates Article 14 and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

  • Article 21: Fundamental rights enshrined in Part III emphasize the protection of life and personal liberty and state, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.” [5]

This grants individuals the right not only to exist but also to live with dignity. The phrase “except according to the procedure established by law” indicates that any deprivation of life or personal liberty must adhere to a lawful process that is fair and just rather than arbitrary.

Over time, the judiciary has interpreted Article 21 expansively, recognizing additional aspects such as the right to privacy, a clean environment, health, and more. It acts as a check against arbitrary state actions, ensuring that the State’s actions conform to lawful and just procedures. While not an absolute right, Article 21 acknowledges that restrictions are permissible under certain circumstances, provided they follow fair practices.

In landmark judgments, the Supreme Court has acknowledged the right to die with dignity as part of the broader right to life, including the right to refuse medical treatment or execute a living will. Article 21 thus reflects the constitutional commitment to upholding justice, fairness, and the rule of law in matters about individuals’ lives and personal liberty.

  • Top of Form
  • Article 14: Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, a cornerstone of the Right to Equality, declares that the State shall not deny equality to any person before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. This means that all individuals, regardless of their background or status, are entitled to be treated equally by the law.

 

Article 14 ensures that no person is subjected to discrimination and that the State’s actions are not arbitrary. The principle of equal protection of the laws ensures that similar circumstances are governed by similar rules, preventing unjust discrimination. The Supreme Court of India has consistently upheld the importance of Article 14 in ensuring justice and fairness in applying laws, emphasizing that it is an essential feature of the Constitution.

  • Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section pertains to the abetment of suicide and prescribes penalties for individuals who abet such an act.

If a person encourages, aids, or instigates someone to commit suicide. That person indeed takes their own life; the one providing such encouragement (the abettor) can be held criminally responsible under this section. Abetment involves intentionally assisting or provoking someone to commit the act. Section 306 aims to hold individuals accountable for actively contributing to another person’s decision to end their own life.

  • Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section addresses the attempt to commit suicide and specifies the penalties for individuals attempting to do so.

ANALYSIS

Arguments by the Petitioner

The petitioner’s counsel contended that the trial court’s decision was erroneous. They argued that there was no abetment of suicide in this case. The petitioner’s argument was primarily grounded in the precedent set by the possibility of P. Rathinam v. Union of India[6], in which it was held that Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was unconstitutional as it contravened Article 21 of the Constitution. This precedent supported the assertion that Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, should also be declared unconstitutional.

The petitioner’s counsel further argued that the term “life” extended beyond mere “animal existence” to encompass the “right to live with human dignity” and embrace the fullness of life. Thus, the “right to life” included the right to end one’s life. The petitioner also cited historical examples, such as the practice of Brahmins in ancient India, who might eliminate their bodies using self-starvation or drowning.

Arguments by the Respondents

The state, representing the respondents, sought to uphold the decisions of the trial court and the High Court. They contended that Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, addressing the abetment of suicide, was an independent and self-sufficient provision not reliant on Section 309 of the same code. The respondents advocated for the annulment of the ruling in the P. Rathinam case, asserting the validity of Section 309 and the non-violation of Article 21.

The respondents argued that the “right to die” was inherently inconsistent with and in contradiction to the “right to life” and, therefore, could not fall within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Opinion of the judges

In this case, the five-judge Constitutional Bench determined that the “right to life” was fundamentally incompatible with the “right to die,” just as “death” was with “life.” The court emphasized that the ‘Right to life’ guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution did not encompass the ‘Right to die’ or ‘Right to be killed.’

The Supreme Court declared that an individual’s right to life included the right to lead a dignified life until the point of death, which extended to the right to a dignified procedure for dying. Thus, an individual facing death had the right to pass away with dignity.

The court clarified that the ‘Right to die with dignity’ should not be confused with the ‘Right to die’ in an unnatural manner. The court emphasized that expediting the process of natural death or permitting the termination of an individual’s life under such circumstances was not allowed and could not be interpreted as within the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution. Consequently, the plea to declare Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, unconstitutional for violating Article 21 was not accepted.

Additionally, the court rejected the plea challenging the constitutional validity of Section 309 on the grounds of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Regarding the second point, the court upheld that assisted suicide and assisted suicide attempts were criminalized for valid reasons serving the interests of society—such provisions aimed to prevent inherent dangers to society without such laws. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, constituted a distinct offense that could exist independently of Section 309.

The court clarified that the arguments in favor of not punishing a person who attempted suicide did not hold when considering the person aiding in the commission of suicide or suicide attempt. Consequently, the Supreme Court overturned the ruling in P. Rathinam v. Union of India, affirming the constitutionality of Sections 306 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and imposing penalties on the accused for the offenses they encompass.

RATIO DECIDENDI

The critical legal principles established by this case are as follows:

  • The right to life, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, includes the right to live with dignity and the freedom to a dignified procedure for dying.
  • The ‘Right to die with dignity’ should not be confused with the ‘Right to die’ in an unnatural manner.
  • The ‘Right to die’ is not constitutionally valid within the framework of Article 21.
  • Sections 306 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are constitutionally valid.

CONCLUSION

The case of Gian Kaur v. The State of Punjab[7] holds significant implications for the interpretation of fundamental rights and the legal landscape surrounding suicide and assisted suicide in India. The Supreme Court’s ruling, which upheld the validity of Sections 306 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and clarified the contours of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, explains the intricate questions surrounding the right to life, death, and dignity.

This case is noteworthy for several reasons. First and foremost, it establishes a clear legal precedent that the ‘Right to life’ enshrined in Article 21 does not encompass the ‘Right to die’ in an unnatural or self-inflicted manner. The court’s interpretation emphasizes that the right to life extends to living a dignified life until the natural end, with a dignified procedure for dying.

By making this distinction, the Supreme Court addresses complex ethical and legal questions that arise in the context of end-of-life decisions and assisted suicide. The ruling reiterates the sanctity of life while allowing individuals the autonomy to pass away with dignity when faced with imminent death.

Furthermore, the case reasserts the validity of laws criminalizing assisted suicide and suicide attempts in the interest of societal well-being. The court recognizes the potential harm to society without such provisions and upholds their legality. This aspect of the judgment carries implications for both the protection of vulnerable individuals and the preservation of societal norms.

In a broader context, the Gian Kaur case highlights the evolving nature of legal interpretation in response to societal changes and ethical dilemmas. The judicial opinion reflects a balance between preserving life and respecting individual autonomy. This balance is essential in addressing multifaceted issues associated with end-of-life decisions and suicide, a topic of increasing relevance in contemporary society.

The case also serves as a precedent for future legal deliberations concerning the right to life, the right to die with dignity and the complex interplay between these rights. It underscores the importance of maintaining a compassionate and ethical approach to end-of-life matters, allowing individuals to make choices while safeguarding the welfare of society as a whole.

For example, an organization, Common Cause, raised the issue of the right to die with dignity in a letter to various ministries. Subsequently, it approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, seeking the recognition of the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right under Article 21[8].

The plea also sought a directive for the Union Government to permit terminally ill patients to create ‘living wills’ for future medical emergencies. Common Cause argued that subjecting sick terminally ill patients to aggressive treatments prolongs their suffering, and allowing them the right to make informed choices in advance through a living will secure their right to die with dignity. On March 9, 2018, a 5-judge bench affirmed that the right to die with dignity is indeed a fundamental right. The court further held that the ability to create advanced medical directives asserts an individual’s right to bodily integrity and self-determination.Top of Form

Gian Kaur’s case marks a significant chapter in India’s legal history, shedding light on the interpretation of fundamental rights and the ethical considerations surrounding life, death, and human dignity. It guides future legal proceedings and underscores the importance of compassion, ethics, and legal clarity in addressing sensitive matters related to end-of-life decisions and suicide.

REFERENCES

[1]AIR 1996 SC 946

[2] 1987 (1) Bom. C.R. 499

[3] 1986 (10) DRJ 31

[4]1994 AIR 1844

[5] Article 21 of The Constitution of India

[6]1994 AIR 1844

[7]1994 AIR 1844

[8] 2018 5 SCC 1

DOWNLOAD NOW