Every child born with a most important fundamental right called right to life or right to live with dignity. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution defines the true spirit of this right. But does this right also give space to the “right to die with dignity or right to die” within its ambit? Does this article 21 also give permit to suicide? The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed some prestigious judgments in the light of this controversy. It justifies the real meaning of Article 21 in light of a Landmark judgement. These prestigious judgement changed the whole point of view of Article 21.
Euthanasia is also known as Mercy killing or Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS). It’s description may also entail pushing a person, who is suffering from an incurable disease, towards gentle death. But here, all that matters is the intention of the patient to die and the method in use to push him to death. If all of this is done without the patient’s intention to die, it will amount to murder. But what if the patient isn’t in condition to describe his will? What if he pushed to death with a wrong method or what method will be treated as illegal? Because of the judgments of the Supreme Court of India, we came up with the legal aspects of Euthanasia.
Article 21 of the Indian constitution
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that “no person shall be deprived of his life or persons liberty excepts according to procedure established by law.”
After each interpretation the courts make in the judgments which deals with Euthanasia, we see a widening of the ambit of Article 21. But Right to Die was never part of any interpretation of the successive judgments of Article 21.
However, the Supreme Court of India in the landmark judgement of Common Cause v. Union of India[1] in March 2018, laid down the legal framework to protect the dignity of a patient suffering with persistent vegetative state(PVS) with no recovery. They allow the passive euthanasia and right to give a valid “living will” to smooth down the death process; and to provide the less painful death to the patient.
In Euthanasia, it is the third party or a physician who administers it. But in PAS, it is patient who himself does it, though on the doctor’s advice. Euthanasia has been practiced for a long time. Even in ancient times, in Buddhism and Jainism, it is valid. According to them, the dignity ends when the body stops working, when anyone is on life support and can’t recover. But in Hindus, Muslims and Christians, it is a crime. It is a process to provide an unnatural death which is also a violation of the law.
Euthanasia practised through two methods mainly, active euthanasia where there is a direct intervention of a lethal medication to the patient to free him from life, whereas in Passive euthanasia the doctors stop the life prolongation resource and medication and leave the patient on his own to smoothen the dying process and the death is considered as a natural death. This can be done with the implied or the expressive request of the patient (voluntary euthanasia), but in the absence of consent, it would amount to (non-voluntary euthanasia).
Supreme Court only allows the passive euthanasia with an interpretation that it is a process of fastening the natural death. But all this is with the consent of the patient; without the consent, it amounts to murder.
Does Right to Die to promote suicide?
In the case of Maruti Sripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra[2] , where Bombay high court held that fundamental rights have positive aspects as well as negative aspects too.
So by following this judgement in the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India and Anr.[3] supreme court ruled that the right to life in article 21 also contains the right to not live under pressure or a forced life, and decriminalise attempt to suicide.
But this controversy just not stopped here, in case of Gian Kaur V. State of Punjab(1996)[4] the judgement or P. Rathinaam V. Union of India was challenged as if an attempt to suicide is void and unconstitutional then why abetting a suicide still a punishable offence. As a result of this case, the court held that both sec 306 and sec 309 of IPC are valid and constitutional.
After this, Supreme Court, in case of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab effectively overruled the judgement of P. Rathinam v. Union of India; They lay that the Right to Die is not a facet within the ambit of Right to Life.
The court observed that the right to live with dignity lasts till the natural end of life. And euthanasia does not result in unnatural death, but it is the process of accelerating the process of natural death which already started.
In a Landmark judgement of Aruna Sandbag(2011) court also declared that Art. 21 do not include right to die but it allows a terminally ill person to end up his life without suffering on life-supporting systems. It would not be amount to a crime.
But on the other hand, the Supreme Court denied to active euthanasia; They hold the use of a lethal substance to end life as not allowable in any circumstance.
In common cause v. union of India court held that the right to life includes the right to die with dignity. There is a loss of dignity when a person forcibly or with allowance undergoes pain and suffering without any guarantee to recover.
CJI Mishra also said, to prevent the possible misuse of greedy relatives eyeing the patient’s property, they also issued the guidelines to “living will” and administration of passive euthanasia by several medical officers and a judicial magistrate. On the other hand they also declare that everybody doesn’t hold the entitlement to enjoy this right merely for the excuse of being poor or any other such reason.
Right to life means a meaningful existence; and there is no meaning to life if a person is brain-dead and his existence is through the support of technology which just prolongs his life for some time. That is definitely not in interest of patient. That tantamount to the destruction of patient’s dignity for which he lived. So there is no deprivation from a dignified procedure of death.
As the conclusion of above stated judgement, the bench included the right to end ones life with dignity within narrow scope of the implication of right to life, as the legal interpretation of Art. 21.
[1] W.P.(CIVIL) no. 215 of 2005
[2] W.P. NO. 641 OF 1986
[3] 1994 AIR 1844, 1994 SCC(3) 394
[4] 1996 AIR 946, 1996 SCC(2) 648
0 Comments