Death is as old as time, it is a natural act on which no one has control over it. But with technology and development in science even brain death patients survive as their body keeps on working with the help of machines and technology. But their life is more like a death as they cannot lead a normal life as others live their life, so the right to die with dignity comes into play. As the State protects the life so it cannot let them take their own life, thus suicide is a punishable offence under the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), but with time judiciary took a bold step in this scenario.
Right to Life with human dignity is not only confined with bare necessities of life but all that which comes along with it.*1 This right to life is incorporated within Article 21 of the Constitution of India which talks about ‘Protection of Life and Personal Liberty’. So the question of whether the right to die comes under the purview of Article 21 or not? This question was answered by the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra v. Maruty Sripati Dubal*2, where the court held that every individual should have the freedom to dispose of his life as and when he desires thus struck down Section 309, I.P.C. which provides for punishment for attempt to commit suicide by a person as unconstitutional.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held a different view and held that the right to die is not a fundamental right within the meaning of Article 21 and hence Section 309, I.P.C. is not unconstitutional. Supreme Court first gave its view in the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India*3, where the Division Bench agreed with the view of Maruti Sripati Dubal case and held that act of suicide cannot be said to be against religion, morality or public policy and an act of attempted suicide has no beneficial effect on society. Further suicide or attempt to commit suicide causes no harm to others, thus held Section 309, I.P.C. unconstitutional. This case was overruled by a five Judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab*4, and rightly held that “Right to life” is a natural right embodied in Article 21 but suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and incompetent and inconsistent with the concept of “right to life”. Further, the Court also recommended the government to consider the feasibility of deleting Section 309, I.P.C. as person attempt suicide when in depression and hence needed help, not punishment.
The concept right to die with dignity was dealt with by the Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India5, under the concept of euthanasia whose meaning suggests an act which leads to a good death, where the apex court gave the guidelines and direction which will be dealt in cases of the terminally ill patient or a person on PVS(persistent vegetative state) with no hope of recovery. Thus the court concluded that the Article 21 does not incorporate right to die but it does incorporate the right to a dignified life upto the point of death including a dignified death.
Conclusion
Continued life is what we assumed is the best interest for public. Death is ultimate, the one has born, is going to die one day. One’s life is very important and thus the constitution protects it. One cannot be permitted to take his own life which is further against the morality and ethics of human behaviour. But only for those people who are severely ill or PVS patients shall be provided with the right to die with dignity, as they have no hope for revival. Further passive euthanasia should also be recognized by the legislative and laws be made upon it for the patients who have no chance of living back the normal life, as when one cannot be given a dignified life one must be given a dignified death.
This Article is written by Mohd. Asad and Ariba Arif. They are currently pursuing B.A.LL.B at Shambhunath Institute of Law and both are in the second year.
REFERENCES
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
2. AIR 1997 SC 411.
3. 1994 3 SCC 394.
4. 1996 2 SCC 648.
5. AIR 2018 SC 1665.
0 Comments