Abstract
The Right to Die is one of the most debated issues in constitutional law, medical ethics and human rights. It creates a major conflict between a patient’s right to make choices about their own life and medical duty to preserve human life at all costs. This research paper examines the legal and constitutional dimensions of right to die in India and also its evolution through the landmark judgements. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty to both citizens and non-citizens. Over the years, the scope of Article 21 has expanded through judicial interpretation leading to the recognition of Right to Die with Dignity in limited circumstances. The research paper examines the concept of right to die, distinction between active and passive euthanasia. It also analyses the development of law through various landmark judgement. The paper further discusses the concept of living wills and the legal safeguards governing passive euthanasia in India. The primary objective of this research is to examine the constitutional validity of the Right to Die with Dignity, analyse the judicial approach towards euthanasia, and evaluate whether the existing legal framework adequately protects the rights and dignity of terminally ill patients. It concludes that the Indian legal system does not recognize absolute right to end one’s life but in certain circumstances the individual areallowed to end their life. Thus, the law seeks to maintain a balance protecting the sanctity of human life, respects individual dignity and ensuring adequate safeguards against the misuse.The study emphasizes the need for continuous legal development to ensure that compassion, dignity, and justice remain at the centre of end-of-life decision-making in India.
Right to life is a fundamental right which not only includes the right to live, but also the right to live with personal liberty and human dignity. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty to both citizens and non-citizens. “According to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution,No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” [1]
Right to life is a wide and evolving concept which includes many aspects such as the right to privacy, right to live with human dignity, right to livelihood, right to shelter, right to sleep, right to education, right to free legal aid, the right to Die with Dignity, etc. The word personal liberty includes the freedom to move freely, the freedom to choose one’s place of residence, and the freedom to engage in any lawful occupation or profession. The Supreme Court has consistently held that expression ‘life’ under Article 21 does not merely mean physical survival but includes the right to live with dignity, free from exploitation, free and unnecessary suffering. This broad interpretation has enabled the judiciary to recognise several rights that are essential for the overall development and well-being of every individual.
Article 21 is often regarded as the heart and soul of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the constitution because it protects the most basic and essential right of every individual. Over the years the Supreme Court has interpreted this provision in a broad and liberal manner to ensure that the constitution remains relevant to the changing needs of society.
There are two important principles related to the protection of life and personal liberty namely:
- Procedure Established by Law and
- Due Process of Law
Before examining these two principles, it is essential to understand that the interpretation of Article 21 has undergone a significant transformation through judicial interpretation. In its initial years, the Supreme Court adopted a narrow and restrictive approach while interpreting the scope of Right to Life and Personal Liberty. However, with the passage of time the judiciary adopted a more liberal and a progressive approach expanding the ambit of Article 21 to include the principles of fairness, justice and reasonableness. This transformation has strengthened the constitutional protection of life and personal liberty and played an important role in expanding the scope of fundamental rights in India.
“Due Process of Law” is an expression originated from the American Legal System, it means if any law made by the legislature,then it must be fair, just, reasonable and free from arbitrariness. The Indian Constitution does not explicitly mention the phrase “Due process of law”,it uses the doctrine of “Procedure established by law”, which has been borrowed from the Japanese Constitution and it has undergone significant interpretation over time. In its earlier phase, the interpretation was narrow and restrictive as it says, if any law is made by the legislature, and it follows the procedure laid down by law, then it was considered valid even if the law is unfair, unjust, or violates individual rights.
In the case of A.K. Gopalan v. Union of India(1950)[2], A. K. Gopalan a communist leader was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 and he challenged the validity of his detention as it violates his rights under articles 19,21 and 22 of the constitution.The Supreme Court however, upheld his detention and took a narrow interpretation of Article 21. It held that as long as a law is enacted by the legislature and the procedure mentioned in it is followed, the detention is valid even if the law is unfair and unjust under Article 19 and 21 are not interconnected.[3]
However, the narrow interpretation of Article 21 in A.K. Gopalan was overruled in the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)[4], where the Supreme Court adopted a broader and more liberal approach. In this case, the government of India seized the passport of Maneka Gandhi under section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 “in public interest”. She was not given any chance to explain her side or to be heard. Maneka Gandhi filed a petition before the Supreme Court, arguing that it led to violation of her fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.The judgement in the Maneka Gandhi Case marked a shift andthe Supreme Court held that any law made by the legislature must follow a proper procedure, and that procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable. If a law is unfair, unjust, or unreasonable, then it can be struck down. The Court also said that not giving a person the chance to be heard is a violation of their fundamental rights. In this case, the Court emphasized the importance of the principle of natural justice. It also introduced the concept of the “Golden Triangle”of the Constitution, which connects Articles 14, 19, and 21. This judgment ended the narrow interpretation of the phrase ‘procedure established by law’ and reduced the gap between ‘procedure established by law’ and ‘due process of law’.[5]
“Just as every individual has the right to speak, they also have the right to remain silent. Similarly, if a person has the right to live, do they also have the right to die? The concept of the right to life has evolved over time, now encompassing one of the most profound and sensitive topics – the right to Die with Dignity.” Right to Die with Dignity means when a person is suffering from a terminal illness or is in a persistent vegetative state, and there is no reasonable hope of recovery. In such cases, the person should have the right to end their life peacefully and voluntarily, without being kept alive by artificial life support. Over time, this concept has evolved through a series of landmark judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of India.Initially, the right to die was considered as a part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21. It was believed that if a person has the right to live, then they should also have the freedom to end their life when they wish to.
In State of Maharashtra v. MarutiSripatiDubal(1997)[6], a Bombay police constable, who was mentally disturbed and frustrated after being denied permission to start his own business, attempted to set himself on fire. In this case, Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, which provides punishment for attempting suicide, was challenged. The Bombay High Court struck down Section 309, holding it unconstitutional. The Court ruled that Article 21 not only includes the right to live but also the right to die. It observed that there may be many situations where a person might choose to end their life, and if the person has the freedom to live, then they must also have the freedom to end their life whenever they desire.[7]
InP. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994)[8], the Supreme Court upheld the judgment earlier given by the Bombay High Court in the State of Maharashtra v. MarutiSripatiDubal case. In this case, the petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, which punishes an attempt to commit suicide.The Supreme Court held that the right to life also includes the right not to live, that is, the right to die. It said that if a person has the freedom to live, they also have the freedom to end their life. [9]
InGian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)[10], the five-judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court overruled the judgment given in P. Rathinam v. Union of India. The Court held that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution does not include the right to die or the right to be killed. It further stated that Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, which provides punishment for attempting suicide, is not unconstitutional.[11]
In ArunaRamachandraShanbaug v. Union of India(2011)[12],the victim was a staff nurse in King Edward Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai. She was attacked on 27th November 1973 by a sweeper in the hospital, who wrapped a dog chain around her neck and yanked her back with it. He also tried to rape her and twisted the chain tightly around her neck. The next day, a cleaner found her lying on the floor in an unconscious state, with blood all over. It was alleged that due to strangulation by the dog chain, the supply of oxygen to her brain had stopped, causing severe brain damage.This incident happened when she was about 36 years old, and at the time of the Supreme Court judgment, she was around 60 years of age. She was in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS). Her brain was dead, and mashed food was fed to her by hand by the hospital staff. Despite her condition, she breathed normally, her pulse, respiratory rate, and blood pressure were also normal. She did not require any life-support machine. Aruna was an orphan, and her care was being taken up by the hospital staff for all those years. A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Justice MarkandeyKatju and Justice Gyan Sudha Misra, delivered the judgment and laid down the law on passive euthanasia in India. The Supreme Court rejected the plea of Pinki Virani, who had filed the petition as the “next friend” of Aruna Shanbaug. The Court held that the hospital staff, who had been taking care of Aruna for over 36 years, were in a better position to make decisions on her behalf and they were strongly opposed to the withdrawal of life support.
However, the Supreme Court laid down important guidelines related to passive euthanasia in India for the first time and held that:
- The decision to discontinue life support in case of a person in a permanent vegetative state must be taken by close relatives, spouse, friends, or the treating doctors acting in good faith (bona fide).
- Any such decision must be approved by the concerned High Court to avoid misuse.
- An application should be filed before the High Court under Article 226, and the court should then constitute a medical board of doctors, hear all parties, and pass an order based on the patient’s best interest.
Thus, while Aruna Shanbaug’s life support was not removed, the judgment became a landmark ruling in allowing passive euthanasia in India under strict legal safeguards.
[1]India Consti. Art.21
[2]A.K. Gopalan v. Union of India, AIR 1950 SC 27
[3]Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law Of India 298 Central law agency ( 61st ed. 2024).
[4] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,AIR 1978 SC 597.
[5] Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law Of India 298 Central law agency ( 61st ed. 2024).
[6] State of Maharashtra v. Maruti Sripati Dubal ,AIR 199 SC 411.
[7] Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law Of India 328 Central law agency (61st ed. 2024).
[8]P. Rathinam v. Union of India,1994 SCC (3) 394.
[9] Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law Of India 329 Central law agency (61st ed. 2024).
[10]Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab ,1996 2 SCC 648.
[11] Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law Of India 329 Central law agency (61st ed. 2024).
[12]Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India,AIR 2011 SC 1290.