PASSIVE EUTHANASIA AND THE RIGHT TO DIE IN INDIA

Justice R.S Pathak in Vikram Deo Singh Tomar vs. State of Bihar 1988 (Supp) SCC 734 penned that “We live in an age when this Court has demonstrated, while interpreting Article 21 of the Constitution, that every person is entitled to a quality of life consistent with his human personality. The right to live with human dignity is the fundamental right of every Indian citizen.” 

Indeed Article 21 does guarantee the right to live with human dignity but what if that dignified life is toiled on a hospital bed enduring a chronic ruptured brain where consciousness and awareness limits, the muscle and bones give in and feelings fail to feel at all. Will a person of this persistent vegetative state (PVC) not be entitled to the right to die? Does Article 21 of the Indian constitution not guarantee these rights? 

JUDICIAL EVOLVEMENT 

India's legal development on the right to die with dignity has evolved slowly, cautiously, and often through deeply tragic human stories. There are many tragic stories, but two of such stories which knocked the doors of the Supreme Court in a gap of more than a decade each, marked the evolution and the constitutional freedom of the right to die with dignity. Euthanasia is a method where a person's life is ended to relieve persistent incurable suffering. It is of two types, Active and Passive. Active is a direct method to end life by way of an injection whereas passive is withholding medical/life support consequently allowing the person to die on its own. Many countries like Australia, Belgium, Canada etc allow active euthanasia but India as of today has not really pressed upon the validity and legality of Active euthanasia. One of the most complex issues which the courts in India were facing was whether Article 21 envisaged the fundamental right to die.

In Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab, 1996(2) SCC 648, the Supreme court had opined that the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution does not include the right to die and the practice of euthanasia was not legally recognised. However, over the years, the judicial and the legislative approach and interpretation of euthanasia with respect to the right to die has evolved. In 2006, the 196th Law Commission of India stated that withholding life support or medical treatment of terminally ill patients does not attract criminal liability of attempt to suicide, provided it is done in the best interest of the patient. Subsequently, the 41st Law Commission Report in 2011 first supported passive euthanasia on humanitarian grounds. 

2011

The debate on euthanasia in India first reached in the case of Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011)  wherein the Supreme Court recognised passive euthanasia for the first time. Although the top court dismissed the petitioner's plea for passive euthanasia on the ground that the patient, though in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) for more than 4 decades, her brain was still healthy and responsive. However, the Supreme court by applying the doctrine of Parens Patriae set some legal framework on how Courts can allow passive euthanasia for the withdrawal of life support to such incompetent persons under article 226.  This decision ruled the validity of passive euthanasia which could be applied in certain circumstances when recovery is medically impossible. This landmark decision also shaped and influenced the right to die jurisprudence in India. 2018 The jurisprudence further evolved in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), when a five judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court recognised that the right to die with dignity forms part of Article 21 of the Constitution. While holding that passive euthanasia is legally valid, the top Court held that  “Though the sanctity of life has to be kept on the high pedestal yet in cases of terminally ill persons or PVS patients where there is no hope for revival, priority shall be given to the Advance Directive and the right of self-determination.” The Court had also introduced the concept of advance medical directives or “living wills.” which is a written document that allows a patient to give explicit instructions in advance about the medical treatment to be administered when he or she is terminally ill or no longer able to express informed consent. 

2026 

The recent judgement passed by the Supreme Court on 11.03.2026 in Harish Rana vs Union of India is a significant ruling wherein the court allowed passive euthanasia and permitted withdrawal of life support following compliance of procedural safeguards, noting that prolonging Harish's biological life was not in his best interest as there was no improvement in his condition. The Court noted that “For the past 13 years, the appellant has lived a life defined by pain and suffering. A suffering made more cruel, as unlike most of us, he was stripped of his ability to even give voice to his anguish.” This decision brings India's jurisprudence on passive euthanasia to a full circle. Although in the case of Arun shabaug, the top court disallowed passive euthanasia despite recognising it in principle, eventually its decision in Harish Rana which permitted passive euthanasia and fortified the right to die with dignity under article 21 implores and reflects the judicial evolvement, the adaptation and acceptance of euthanasia by the Supreme Court assuring institutional confidence and also giving the patient’s best interest of utmost importance. The Top court's decision to allow Harish Rana bid farewell after 12 years of pain and agony and by preserving his right to life with dignity is the greatest judicial duty the court executed to uphold his constitutional rights. Eventually,  just after 14 days of passing the aforesaid judgement, Harish died as per his will by exercising his fundamental right to die with dignity. 

*13 years of pain and suffering and tolerance of being in a vegetative state, where was the necessary interference from the court for all these years. Science is based on empirical evidence, and if the medical reports and experts in the domain find that a person cannot and has no chances to recover, it is the duty of the concerned officer and the court to ensure his fundamental right to die is availed. Harish’s story is a monumental story where future cases of such can be avoided, and the pain and agony can be put to eternal sleep with dignity.

I am a legal professional and a proud Gorkha. A proactive yet a receptive critic who is always looking for opportunities to improve and grow.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

WHAT IS 'QUESTION OF LAW' & ' SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW'

The maintainability of an appeal before the high court or the Supreme Court depends on the narrow  determination/validity of issues of laws involved. The courts in appeal should be convinced that a  substantial question of law is involved for its indulgence into the matter and not mere question of  law. The legislation does not describe ‘Question of law’ and ‘Substantial question of Law’ but  judicial precedents overtime has shaped and differentiated its true meaning. A Question of law arises when there is ambiguity and uncertainty in application of a settled legal provision to the facts and circumstances of the case and this question of law becomes substantial when the question of law has not been dealt with or when there are conflicting judicial opinions by  different benches of the High Court or the Supreme Court that requires effective interpretation and  permanent judicial consideration. What is the test for determination on whether a Substantial Quest...
Read more

THE PRACTICE OF EXHIBITION OF DOCUMENTS UNDER THE INDIAN LAW.

Exhibition of a document in judicial proceedings is a standard customary practice that has been followed for a long period of time. There isn’t any specific provision under the law that governs the  expression ‘ exhibit ’   or ‘marking’ of documents. There are only certain rules laid down in the Delhi High Court (original side) rules with regard to the mandatory marking of the document with exhibit or labeling of every document produced during trial. PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTS. Order 13 Rules 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stipulates rules for admission or rejection of documents. The same read as follows: Rule 3   - Rejection of irrelevant or inadmissible documents. ― The Court may at any stage of the suit reject any document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, recording the grounds of such rejection. Rule 4  -  Endorsements on documents admitted in evidence. ― (1) Subject to the provisions of the next foll...
Read more

ARE SUBSIDARIES INCLUDED AS ASSETS OF THE PARENT COMPANY DURING INSOLVENCY.

Once a company goes into insolvency, the Resolution Professional (RP) is mandated to take over all the assets of the Corporate Debtor thereto but the IBC code imposes some statutory restrictions to the term ' assets ' stipulated under section 18 of the IBC code (herein after the code) Do subsidiaries come under the purview of insolvency of the parent shareholding company? It is a settled law that a subsidiary is a separate legal entity from its parent company as laid down by the celebrated english precedent in  Salomon v. A. Salomon & Co. Ltd. [1897] AC 22 . This foundational doctrine of a separate corporate personality has been consistently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, most notably in the landmark case of Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613 , which has clarified that even a wholly-owned subsidiary does not lose its distinct identity and that its assets belong to it, not to its parent shareholder.  The statutory pro...
Read more