This article has been written by Ms. Shruti Medhekar, a 4^th year B.A.LLB student of Keshav Memorial College of Law.

INTRODUCTION:

The constitution of India is considered to be the supreme law of the land, which provides for rules and regulations for the proper functioning of the government. It lays out the basic structure of the government. In addition to this it provides several fundamental rights which comes under the part III of the constitution and also bestows with various fundamental duties to its citizens. All the citizens are to abide by the constitution and enjoy their fundamental rights peacefully. 

The moment a person is born, he is considered to be a citizen and is conferred with the fundamental rights. Among those one of the fundamental right is the Article 21 which speaks about the protection of life and personal liberty. It is the basic human right enjoyed by all the citizens, person and aliens. 

ARTILCE 21:

Article 21 reads:

“No person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.”

Article 21 is declared to be the heart of the fundamental rights by the Supreme Court. And further it cannot be suspended during the period of emergency unlike other rights. This article has been very widely interpreted by the judiciary and has been given a greater importance and implication. All the other existing fundamental rights get importance through the existence of this article. Article 21 speaks about the individual’s life i.e. the existence of the person. And a person can explicitly enjoy the fruits of the other fundamental rights only when there is some protection given to his life and existence. 

In Kharak Singh vs State of U.P. and Others the court interpreted the word ‘life’ in article 21 in a broader sense meaning right to life to live with human dignity and does not merely connote continued drudgery. It has to be treated merely more than an animal existence. 

The clear and broader interpretation of the word life states that life does not only mean to breathe and stay alive but to enjoy and attach all such aspects to our life which makes it meaningful, healthy to sustain and not just to continue life with mere existence as a human flesh. Such broader interpretation of article 21 to lead a peaceful and dignified life, by our judiciary include right to livelihood, right to live with human dignity, right to shelter, right to healthy environment, right to privacy, right to reputation etc. 

In Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India, 1978 the Supreme Court overruled its judgement given in the A.K. Gopalan case where it took the narrow interpretation of the article 21 and in the present case gave a wider interpretation to it. 

RIGHT TO DIE:

Now under the scope of article 21 with its wider interpretation the right to die is also included from March 9, 2018 and falls under its head. The question for legalizing the right to die i.e. euthanasia was raised in connection to the patients who were suffering from terminal, incurable and irrecoverable diseases. It is made as clear as crystal that according to article 21 right to life means to live life with dignity until natural death comes to the person. Death means to terminate one’s life and no person wishes to end his/her life but instead would want to stay healthy and live a long life.

Prior to legalizing right to die there were many contradictions raised by the advocates and critics on this topic. Advocates in support of right to die stated that it should be practiced. But the critics argued that killing is wrong in any way. Further it was also argued that physician assisted death or physician’s participation in patient death violates the medicals profession basic precept. This right further would be contradicting to the IPC provisions under section 300 and 302; murder which is a punishable offence. Similarly under section 306 and 309; suicide is a punishable offence. Because ending life would mean similar to the commission of suicide.

With the raising of severe objections from the critics the difference between euthanasia and the death by the means mentioned under section 300,302,306 and 309 was clearly made. 

The unconstitutionality of section 309 IPC was raised under P. Rathinam vs Union of India the main contention raised here was that guaranteeing of right to die as fundamental right raises question on the constitutional validity of section 309. The Supreme Court made its decision by stating that there is a difference between each fundamental rights and held that right to live under 21 also includes the right not to live. And further section 309 IPC was held unconstitutional.

But in the succeeding case of Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab the petitioners were held liable for abatement of suicide under section 306 IPC. The petitioner contented that their conviction was wrong based on the P. Rathinam’s case judgement which held that right to life includes right to die under article 21. So person who merely abets the commission of suicide by aiding the victim should not be held liable. The judgment given in P. Rathinam’s case was overruled here and based on merits of case held that section 306 and 309 IPC are constitutionally valid. 

CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY:

Eventually after many debates and queries raised and on critical analysis the Supreme Court in the instant petition of Common Cause vs Union of India gave legal effect to die with dignity as a fundamental right on March 9, 2018 and gave effect to the Advanced Medical Directives (Living Will) and the Medical Attorney Authorization to facilitate the exercise of this right. Advanced Medical Directives (Living Will) means a legal document explaining one’s wish about medical treatment if one becomes incompetent or unable to communicate. 

But the Supreme Court after legalizing the Right to die as a fundamental right also mentioned that this right is not to be abused by giving few points in support of legalizing the right: 

1. Only passive euthanasia is allowed under right to die. Active euthanasia is not made legal. The difference between active and passive euthanasia was made in Common Cause, stating that active euthanasia involves the intent of causing death but passive euthanasia doesn’t involve so.
2. Further the individual’s personal autonomy is required. Every individual who is in the vegetative state or suffering from terminal disease has to provide their choice to treatment and life. 
3. And in situation where the patient is not able to communicate his wish the next close person has to do the same. 
4. In addition to this it was also stated that commission of suicide also doesn’t fall under this fundamental right. 
5. Further, it was stated that after the autonomy of the patient is recorded the matter has to be referred to the respective states High Court and a board of medical practitioners and experts is to be formed to examine the state of patient and analyze whether to grant passive euthanasia or not. 

The first passive euthanasia case was tried in Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug vs Union of India and Others under which the petitioner who brutally suffered serious injuries leaving her in a grave vegetative state which was far worse than facing death. She was under medical treatment for a longer period of time but it didn’t change her state of health. Such was the situation where dying would be rather peaceful than suffering the brutal injuries and pain. The petition was upheld by the court and the petitioner was given the right to die peacefully. 

CONCLUSION:

From the above made observations it was seen that right to die i.e. euthanasia was considered as an act against law and humanity. But after the observations and critical analysis made by the judiciary. It held that the right to die should be legalized to provide it as a better option to the individuals who are suffering from irrecoverable and incurable diseases. 

“Dying can be a peaceful event or a great agony when it is inappropriately sustained by life support” – Roger Bone. 

Any person would not want to end owns life until the life which they are leading becomes purposeless and useless. The real meaning and intent of living the life will be in vain when one is suffering from a terminal incurable disease causing more pain than any other difficulties faced in life. 

Legalizing right to die turned out to be a good means to provide a peaceful death to the person suffering from severe pain. But the terms euthanasia and suicide must be clearly made distinctive and the penal provisions of suicide and homicide should be preserved so that the public at large do not use it as a means to cause death of any individual and take shield under this head. And solely euthanasia with the voluntary consent of the individual be practiced as an exception to ending individual’s life through suicide and homicide. 

REFERENCES:

1. Kharak Singh vs State of U.P. and Others
2. Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India, 1978
3. P. Rathinam vs Union of India
4. Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab
5. Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug vs Union of India and Others
6. Indiankanoon.com
7. Lawoctopus.com
8. Careerlauncher.com
9. Legalserviceindia.com
10. Indianlegalsolution.com

Aishwarya Says:

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to secondinnings.hr@gmail.com

Join our  Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening