NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA, CUTTACK

PROJECT ON: CIVIL LIBERTIES

TOPIC: LIFE, DEATH AND DIGNITY: THE EVOLVING

EUTHANASIA DISCOURSE IN INDIAN COURTS

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF: MS. KRITI SRIVASTAVA

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW

SUBMITTED BY:
MRIDULA SINGH (2023/BBA.LLB/056)

|BBA. LL.B (Hons)| | SEMESTER 2|

BATCH OF 2023-2028

1|Page
 LIFE, DEATH AND DIGNITY: THE EVOLVING EUTHANASIA
DISCOURSE IN INDIAN COURTS

Mridula Singh Bhatti

Morality or rationality the question lingers on as the debate for the legalization of euthanasia lulls
around the medico-legal ambit of the Indian jurisprudence. The logic of ending the unbearable
suffering seems humane but one finds the trends in the existing society disturbing for the
application of the same. Euthanasia is the practice of injecting a painless lethal drug into a patient’s
body under the supervision of a physician, whose continuing life resembles an obligation rather
than will, this process is commonly known as PAS or physician-assisted suicide. Euthanasia is
commonly achieved by the administration of an overdose of sedative-hypnotic medications named
barbiturates. Euthanasia is questioned as going against the very basis of the right to life as
prescribed under Article 21 of the Indian constitution. The inclusion of the right to die as a valid
right under the right to life seems ironic on the face itself, but is it so? One is forced to wonder if
a painful existence is better than a painless death. What conclusively fulfils the right to live with
dignity in its entirety? What are the potential harms of legalizing euthanasia? Considering the
economic, societal, political, legal, and personal factors which might be affected by the same.
Rationale and logic can only do so much as lay general inferences of the potential impact of a
decision. However, there may be hidden primal drivers that might affect the reality of legalizing
euthanasia.

The precedents deciding on euthanasia in India have been decided by 3 landmark cases, in the
1996 case of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab 1the court overruled the 1994 judgment given in
Rathinam v Union of India2 which declared Section 301of the IPC as unconstitutional, which
provides punishment for anyone who attempts suicide, the court while overruling the same
extended the reasoning that right to life under article 21 does not include the right to die.
Additionally, stating that right to withhold speech under article 19 (1) cannot be a rational

1 1996 AIR 946, 1996 SCC (2) 648, AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 1257
2 1994 AIR 1844, 1994 SCC (3) 394

2|Page
argument for upholding the right to not live. But it was in the 2011 case of Aruna Shanbaug v.
Union of India3 that the judiciary was forced to take up the cause for euthanasia head front when
the question of removing Aruna Shanbaug of her life-sustaining machines was being deliberated
upon. Aruna Shanbaug was a nurse who was in a vegetative state for almost 37 years who later on
became the face of the euthanasia debate in India. The 2018 judgment of the Supreme Court in
Common Cause v. Union of India4 laid the present judicial understanding of euthanasia,
prescribing directions for the adoption of a suitable procedure for executing an advanced medical
directive also termed as ‘living will’. A living will be a document that specifies what actions should
be taken if a person is unable to make their own medical decisions in the future. Additionally, the
judgment delves into answering various questions on social morality, medical ethicality, and state
interest. It further differentiates between the ways of administering the process of euthanasia
stating a distinction between active and passive euthanasia. Finally, on January 24 th, 2023, a 5-
judge constitution bench led by K.M Joseph delivered important judgment altering guidelines for
terminally ill patients to withdraw from treatment making it less cumbersome.

If we were to go back and trace the primal intent behind the concept of euthanasia, there stand
innumerable reasons substantiating arguments forwarded by both supporters and oppressors for
the legalization of active euthanasia in India. The advocates of active euthanasia pose the argument
of personal physical autonomy. 5 Evolution in modern medicine explains how professionals no
longer associate death merely with breathing and heartbeat but when the brain of such a person is
affected meaning the brain and the brain stem are considered to have degenerated beyond repair
or simply put where the person is declared ‘brain dead’. On the other hand, statistics suggest that
the incidence of depression in terminally ill patients ranges from 25% to 77%, further explaining
and increasing the difficulty faced by psychiatrists in diagnosing such mental ailments. Extending
arguments that such patients may not be in the right state of mind to make such monumental
decisions and may make ill-considered decisions of self-destruction6.

3 AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 1290, 2011 (4) SCC 454

4 AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 1665, AIR 2018 SC (CIV) 1683
5 Shekhawat RS and others, ‘Euthanasia: Global Scenario and Its Status in India - Science and Engineering Ethics’

(SpringerLink, 19 July 2017) <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-017-9946-7>

6 Sareen R, ‘Walsh Medical Media: Journals: Open Access Journals’ (Health Care : Current Reviews, 4 June 2019)

<https://www.walshmedicalmedia.com/open-access/india-decides-on-euthanasia-is-the-debate-over-44121.html>

3|Page
The relationship between various schools of jurisprudential theory and active euthanasia is
complex and multifaceted in the Indian context. The natural school, advocated by thinkers like
John Locke and Aristotle, emphasizes ethics, morality, and God-given natural rights, including the
"right to life" enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution; granting a "right to die" would
contravene this fundamental natural right. In contrast, the positive school, represented by John
Austin and H.L.A. Hart, focuses on the law as it is written, not as it should be; given the Indian
Penal Code's criminalization of murder and attempted murder in sections 300 and 307, active
euthanasia cannot currently be permitted under this view. The historical school, which sees law as
a product of societal evolution, categorizes the "right to life" as a non-transferable "privilege";
though passive euthanasia has gained acceptance as a "claim right," active euthanasia remains
unrecognized.7Finally, the sociological school, born of the Industrial Revolution, aims to balance
individual welfare and societal objectives; while this approach may support active euthanasia for
those in permanent vegetative states or extreme suffering, the present legal framework does not
allow it.8 Thus, despite differing philosophical underpinnings, the various jurisprudential schools
converge on the conclusion that active euthanasia cannot be granted under India's current legal
system.

A decisive decision on the legality of active euthanasia seems far away considering the current
political mood of the legislature, nonetheless, an extensive thought thorough process deliberating
upon the same would be required as with the evolving landscape and the shifting attitude of the
general populace the narrative around death, suffering and the concept of euthanasia has seen to
be taken into serious consideration. It also becomes necessary to study different countries allowing
euthanasia and draw parallels between the differences in societies and the cumulative impact of
euthanasia with regards to the same.

7 Shekhar S, Goel A. Euthanasia: India’s Position in the Global Scenario. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative
Medicine®. 2013;30(7):628-631. doi:10.1177/1049909112465941
8 Soni A, ‘Manupatra’ (Articles, 8 March 2022) <https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/A-Jurisprudential-

and-Systemic-Analysis-of-Active-Euthanasia-in-India> accessed 15 February 2024

4|Page