Abstract
Euthanasia, or mercy killing, presents one of the most complex intersections of law, ethics, and medicine. In India, the legal status of euthanasia has evolved primarily through judicial pronouncements rather than legislative action. While passive euthanasia has been recognized under strict conditions, active euthanasia remains illegal. The Supreme Court, through landmark decisions, has interpreted Article 21 of the Constitution to include the right to die with dignity. The recent 2026 judgment in Harish Rana v. Union of India marks the first practical implementation of passive euthanasia in India, reigniting the debate on the need for comprehensive legislation. This paper argues that reliance on judicial guidelines is inadequate and highlights the urgent necessity for a clear, uniform statutory framework governing euthanasia.”
Introduction
“Euthanasia refers to the intentional termination of life to relieve suffering. It raises fundamental questions regarding autonomy, dignity, and the role of the state in regulating life and death. In India, the legal framework governing euthanasia is largely judge-made, leading to ambiguity and inconsistency.
The distinction between active euthanasia (illegal) and passive euthanasia (conditionally legal) forms the foundation of Indian jurisprudence. Passive euthanasia involves withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment, allowing the patient to die naturally.
Despite progressive judicial decisions, India lacks a comprehensive statute governing euthanasia. The recent 2026 Supreme Court judgment has further exposed this legislative vacuum and emphasized the need for parliamentary intervention.”