PASSIVE EUTHANASIA AND THE RIGHT TO DIE IN INDIA

PRELUDE

Writes Francis Bacon in his philosophical piece Of Death "It is as natural to die, as to be born; and to a little infant, perhaps, the one is as painful, as the other". He tries to convince his readers that death is natural and an inevitable process and should not be feared.  

But it is also the natural Human tendency (at least in most of us) to fear, fight or if possible, cheat death and not accept it so easily even though our religions preaches the otherwise that death is just another phase of life.

Dylan Thomas in his great poem Do not go gentle into the good night pens "rage rage against the dying of the light."  pleading his fellow readers to fight death and not accept it easily although death is inevitable. 

But when severe medical condition bleeds one from the brain to the bone, mercilessly everyday slowing death in the most painful manner. Does one still fight or accept death? Either ways there is extreme agony with tormented consciousness to live or the hope to welcome death at the earliest which is uncertain and a relentless suffering. 

Justice R.S Pathak's obiter dictum in Vikram Deo Singh Tomar vs. State of Bihar 1988 (Supp) SCC 734 noted 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 crucified 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 envisage these rights? 

In such peculiar cases when staying alive is no longer a pursuit of recovery but a endurance of torment, the constitutional morality has been harmonized with respect to such sufferings and has prioritised the individual's dignity over the mere biological fact of living by guaranteeing the liberty to exercise the right to die with dignity.  

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 such 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.

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. India over the years has grown to welcome the practice of passive euthanasia under strict timelines. Many countries like Australia, Belgium, Canada etc allow active euthanasia as well but India as of today, has not really pressed upon the validity and legality of the same.

Article 21 also envisages Right to die with dignity

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 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 initially in the case of Arun Shabaug, the top court disallowed passive euthanasia despite recognising it in principle, eventually its decision in Harish Rana it permitted passive euthanasia and fortified the right to die with dignity under article 21. The court also commended the courage of the parents to plead for his right to a dignified death, to further quote 'To Harish’s family, we want to acknowledge the deep emotional weight this decision carries. This decision can feel like an act of surrender, but we believe it is, in truth, an act of profound compassion and courage. You are not giving up on your son. You are allowing him to leave with dignity. It reflects the depth of your selfless love and devotion towards him.'

This verdict implores and reflects the judicial evolvement, the adaptation and acceptance of passive euthanasia and the right to die in a dignified manner by the Supreme Court assuring institutional confidence and also giving the patient’s best interest of utmost importance. 

CONCLUSION.

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 right. Eventually, just after 14 days of passing the aforesaid judgement, Harish succumbed to death peacefully while exercising his fundamental right to die with dignity. Was it a peaceful death? No it wasn't. Was it a dignified death? On paper it was, but his story inspires to avoid such future cases and end the mental and physical suffering of long years toiling on a hospital bed.

ADDENDUM

*13 years of pain, suffering and tolerance of being in a vegetative state, where was the necessary interference from the court to grant him the right to die all these years. Science is based on empirical evidence, and if the medical reports and experts in the domain come to a conclusion that a person cannot and has no chances to recover and live a dignified life, 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 anguish to live can be finally put to eternal sleep with dignity.