The term ‘right to die’ has been interpreted in a number of ways, including issues of suicide, passive euthanasia, active euthanasia, assisted suicide, and physician assisted suicide.
The right to die is related to a person’s wish that caregivers allow death by removing the life support system under certain conditions when recovery is highly unlikely or impossible. It is also said that many patients on respirators are not conscious and so cannot say whether they want to live or die.
It is also said that every individual has the right to die with dignity. In India it is believed that Right to life is of paramount importance. Therefore, when we see our judiciary’s approach it is completely volatile and changing with their conflicting judgments.
The first case which highlighted the issue of right to die was State versus Sanjay Kumar {(1985) Cr. L.J., 935}, where the court has criticized the Section 309 of IPC and considered it to be ‘an anachronism and a paradox’. Therefore, the court considered section 309 of IPC violate of Article 21 of the India Constitution.
In the case of Maruti Sripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra {(1987) Cr. L.J., 743} it was held by the court that “we are of the view that S. 309 is ultra vires the Constitution being violative of Arts. 14 and 21 thereof and must be struck down”
In the case of Chenna Jagadeeswar v. State of Andhra Pradesh {(1983) Cr. L.J., 549}, has overruled the Maruti Sripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra and if Section 309 is to be held illegal, we are highly doubtful whether Section. 306, IPC could survive therefore, it was held that it is constitutionally valid.
In P. Rathinam v. Union of India & Ors. {1994(3) SCC 394} the Supreme Court declared that IPC Sec 309 is unconstitutional under Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution.
This case was overruled in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab {AIR 1996 SC 1257} and it was held that, Article 21 guaranteeing the right to life did not include a right to die or right to be killed. It was further held that, right to life was a natural right embodied in Article 21 , but suicide was an unnatural termination or extinction of life and therefore, ‘incompatible and inconsistent’ with the concept of right to life. The ‘right to life’ including the right to live with human dignity would mean the existence of such a right up to the end of natural life. This also includes the right to a dignified life up to the point of death including a dignified procedure of death. However the court appears to have approved passive euthanasia by holding that one may, in a given case, have the right to die with dignity as a part of right to live with dignity. It was observed that, these are not cases of extinguishing life but only of accelerating conclusions of the process of natural death which has already commenced.
In Aruna Shanbhag’s case, a request is made to the court to stop giving food and water to a 60-year-old coma patient, without relatives to care for her, in a permanent vegetative state for the past 37 years in the hospital. The attorney, Shekhar Nafde, urged that the request by her friend social activist Pinki Virani should not be construed as a plea for euthanasia. Her life is worse than animal existence, keeping her alive by force feeding her violates her right to die with dignity. This case has once again fostered the debate on legalization of euthanasia in India.
The Supreme Court of India has, for the first time, laid down guidelines for euthanasia and made a distinction between ‘active’ and ‘passive’ euthanasia. It said that causing the death of a person who is in a permanent vegetative state, with no chance of recovery, by withdrawing artificial life support is not a “positive act of killing”.
The court clarified that stopping treatment (which it has allowed) and giving a lethal injection (which it has not allowed) are not both deliberate acts and therefore the same thing. “The difference between active and passive euthanasia is that in active euthanasia something is done to end the patient’s life, while in passive euthanasia something is not done that would have preserved the patient’s life,” the bench observed.
The court also laid down guidelines for passive euthanasia such as that the matter must be referred to the high court for a decision and that the doctor, or the parents or spouse of the patient must be the ones to petition for the withdrawal of life-support. In the absence of any of these, a person or a body of persons acting as ‘next friend’ can be permitted. Virani, the petitioner in this case, was not the right person, the hospital was, the judges held. The judgment allowing passive euthanasia will remain in force until such time as Parliament enacts a suitable law on euthanasia. Until then, the following process will be followed:
The judges also made a significant recommendation: that the Union government repeal Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code that makes attempt to suicide an offence.
With the recent judgement we can see that the court view is changing and right to die has been taken into right spirit and getting a recognition, which is already legalised by many other county like Canada, Netherlands and United States.
www.grandmasters.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.rcls.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.itlegalsummit.com | 8 Years & Counting
www.bfls.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.maels.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.plcs.co.in | 8 Years & Counting
Copyright © 2020 Lex Witness - India's 1st Magazine on Legal & Corporate Affairs Rights of Admission Reserved
