This article has been written by Ms. Shruti Medhekar, a 4th year B.A.LLB student of Keshav Memorial College of Law.
INTRODUCTION:
Right to die is a concept which has been evolving in the recent years. It means that whether a human being is entitled to or has a right to end one’s own life. As we know that every citizen of India is guaranteed fundamental rights since the time of their birth. One of such right is known as right to life which can be enjoyed by every person.
Right to life is guaranteed under article 21 of Part- III of the constitution of India. It states as follows:
Protection to personal life and liberty: “No person shall be deprived of his personal life or liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
This right has been very broadly interpreted and includes various aspects of living a peaceful and dignified life. It has a much amplified meaning. It includes right to livelihood, right to privacy, right to healthy environment, right to food, right to shelter etc. These are the conditions which contribute to proper enjoyment of one’s human life.
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.
RIGHT TO DIE?
Now the question arises as to whether right to die is included under right to life? As seen above the right to life means to live life with dignity until natural death comes to the person. Death means to terminate one’s life. No person wishes to end his/her life but instead would want to stay healthy and live a long life. But the question arises when the person is suffering from a terminal disease the pain and suffering of which is far worse than to face death.
Right to die also known as euthanasia which is derived from the ancient Greek word ‘Eu’ means ‘good’ and ‘thantos’ means ‘death’ which means to end life to relieve pain and suffering. Euthanasia is now a very controversial and debatable talk which put many philosophers, jurists, thinkers into thought.
In the ancient period many saints and courageous people have practiced euthanasia in form of sati, johar, Samadhi etc. In the present times all these are not being followed, but euthanasia is one of the hot burning topic requiring legal sanction.
ANALYSIS:
Taking a comprehensive view on right to die or euthanasia, it is very much clear that any normal person would want to continue their life healthily by any possible outcome. And legalizing euthanasia would apparently lead to ending one’s life. According to general analysis it is known that every right has a corresponding duty. So on introducing euthanasia as a legal right given to one individual then it would be a corresponding duty of other individual to end the formers life. 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. This clash between the two above mentioned provisions has been clearly interpreted and a difference is made between the two.
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.
RIGHT TO DIE AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT:
On critical analysis of legalizing right to die 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- And in situation where the patient is not able to communicate his wish the next close person has to do the same.
- In addition to this it was also stated that commission of suicide also doesn’t fall under this fundamental right.
- 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:
The right to die as made fundamental right under article 21 paves way to peaceful death to those who are in a permanent vegetative state by way of passive euthanasia as guaranteed under this right. This right provides for a balance between the Right to life and Right to die by giving them corresponding interpretations.
After a careful and critical analysis the Supreme Court in Common Cause gave this right the validity with the intent to provide every individual to take decision with regard to their life. And further end their life is there is no pertinent means to stay alive when suffering from serious terminal illness. But this statement is not to be confused with ending life in any unnatural ways.
Apparently the recognition of right to die as fundamental right doesn’t cover the deaths due to any natural reasons or due to any personal intent to die while continuing to live a healthy life. These deaths are not answered and justified under the head of Right to die provided as fundamental under article 21.
REFERENCES:
- Kharak Singh vs State of U.P. and Others
- P. Rathinam vs Union of India
- Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab
- Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug vs Union of India
- Board of trustees of the port of Bombay vs Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and others
- State of Andhra Pradesh vs Challa Ramakrishna Reddy and others
- K.S. Puttaswamy and another vs Union of India and others
- Indian Kanoon.org
- Legalserviceindia.com
- Iblogpleaders.com
- Scobserver.in
Aishwarya Says:
Law students often face problems, which they cannot share with their friends and families. We have started a column on our website Student’s Corner. In this column we are talking to several law students about the challenges that they face. Students who are interested in participating in the same, can fill this Google Form.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
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 aishwarya@aishwaryasandeep.com
Join our Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening