The "Right to Die" concept centers on allowing individuals, especially those with terminal illnesses, to end their life or refuse life-sustaining treatment. In India, this concept has evolved through key legal rulings, addressing ethical, moral, and legal challenges surrounding euthanasia.

As Dr. Jack Kevorkian once said, “For those who are facing a terminal illness, who are in irremediable pain and suffering, and wish to exercise their right to die with dignity, a system should be available to them.”

Understanding the Right to Life and Death

In India, the "Right to Life" is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, which states, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” While this fundamental right primarily focuses on the preservation of life, it has also been interpreted by the judiciary to include the right to live with dignity. However, the question arises whether this right extends to the right to end one’s life or the right to die.

The concept of death, especially voluntary death through euthanasia or assisted suicide, often conflicts with societal, cultural, and legal norms. Historically, legal systems have equated death with the unlawful act of suicide, which has been penalized under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Nevertheless, as medical advancements and philosophical debates have evolved, the law has started to recognize scenarios where euthanasia, or the "right to die," may be justified.

You can also read the latest judgment by visiting [Latest Judgment].
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]

Judicial Responses and Landmark Cases

The legal framework regarding the right to die in India has been shaped by several landmark judgments.

State v. Sanjay Kumar Bhatia (1994)

In this case, the Delhi High Court criticized Section 309 of the IPC, which criminalizes attempted suicide, as "anachronistic" and a "paradox." The court recognized the distressing nature of a suicide attempt and called for a more humane approach, but it did not provide a conclusive ruling on euthanasia.

Naresh Marotrao Sakhre v. Union of India (1996)

In this case, the court drew a distinction between suicide and euthanasia. Suicide is considered self-destruction, while euthanasia involves the active participation of a third party. The court pointed out that euthanasia was not addressed under Section 309 of the IPC.

P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994)

The court struck down Section 309 of the IPC, declaring it to be unconstitutional and irrational. The ruling emphasized the importance of compassion, especially in cases of people suffering from severe pain or mental illness, and called for decriminalizing suicide attempts. However, this decision was later overruled.

Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)

This case reaffirmed that the right to life under Article 21 does not include the right to die or the right to be killed. The Supreme Court held that suicide and euthanasia are inconsistent with the concept of the right to life, as life is a natural and fundamental right. However, the Court also suggested that passive euthanasia, which allows patients to refuse life support, could be a valid option.

Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011)

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of passive euthanasia. Arun Shanbaug, a nurse who had been in a vegetative state for years following a brutal assault, was the subject of this case. The Court permitted passive euthanasia, holding that if a person is in a permanent vegetative state with no hope of recovery, they could be allowed to die with dignity by removing life support.

Common Cause v. Union of India (2018)

The 2018 judgment by the Supreme Court was a pivotal moment for the right to die in India. A five-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Dipak Mishra, unanimously recognized the "right to die with dignity" as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court also legalized passive euthanasia and permitted the creation of a "living will" or an advance directive, allowing terminally ill patients to express their wishes regarding end-of-life decisions. This judgment has been seen as a major step in the legal recognition of euthanasia in India.

What is Euthanasia?

Euthanasia is a practice where a person's life is deliberately ended to relieve them of suffering, typically in cases of terminal illness. Euthanasia can be classified into two categories:

• Active euthanasia, where a third party actively administers a substance to end a person's life.
• Passive euthanasia, where life-support systems are withdrawn to allow the person to die naturally.

The legality of euthanasia in India is nuanced. Active euthanasia remains illegal, as it involves direct intervention to end a life. However, passive euthanasia has been legalized under specific circumstances, as confirmed by the judgment in Common Cause v. Union of India. The Court recognized that passive euthanasia, which involves withdrawing life support for terminally ill patients, is consistent with the right to live with dignity.

The concept of a "living will" was also introduced, allowing individuals to provide advance instructions about their end-of-life care. This ensures that people suffering from terminal illnesses or in a persistent vegetative state can choose a dignified death in accordance with their wishes.

Arguments for and Against Legalizing Euthanasia

Arguments in Favor of Euthanasia:

1. Relief from Suffering: It provides an option to end extreme physical and mental pain in terminal conditions.
2. Financial and Emotional Relief: Euthanasia can ease the financial burden and emotional stress on families caring for terminally ill patients.
3. Medical Ethics: It aligns with the physician's duty to alleviate suffering and help patients die with dignity.

Arguments Against Euthanasia:

1. Religious Objections: Many religious beliefs oppose euthanasia, asserting that life is sacred and should not be prematurely ended.
2. Potential for Abuse: Legalizing euthanasia could lead to misuse, especially involving vulnerable groups like the elderly or poor.
3. Slippery Slope: There is concern that legalizing euthanasia may eventually lead to involuntary euthanasia, where individuals could be coerced into ending their lives.

Conclusion

In India, active euthanasia remains illegal, but passive euthanasia was legalized, with the "right to die with dignity" recognized as a fundamental right in a 2018 Supreme Court ruling. While progress has been made, concerns about misuse persist, and the future of euthanasia remains uncertain. However, the right to die with dignity is increasingly linked to the right to live with dignity.