File Copyright Online - File mutual Divorce in Delhi - Online Legal Advice - Lawyers in India

Critically Analyzing Right To Death In Resonance With Right To Life

The right to Life is the paramount fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India. When we dig deeper into the various aspects of the right to life we will configure that all aspects of the right revolve around personal liberty and life. The right to life also includes the right to dignity in life and respect. There is an important quote by Queen Rania Al Abdullah - "When you deprive people of their right to live in dignity, to hope for a better future, to have control over their lives when you deprive them of that choice then you expect them to fight for these rights."[1]

This blog holistically looks into the aspect of the right to life in resonance with the right to death. As we all know the right to life is safeguarded under The constitution of India but when we compare it with the right to die, it is a punishable offense under The Penal Code, 1860. A lot of critics objected to decriminalizing section 309 which is related to suicide and punishing those who attempt to suicide.

Judicial Interpretations
The right to die is not a fundamental right Under Article 21. Manier times it came before various high courts and The Apex court. It came interestingly under the watchful eye of the Bombay high court in the State of Maharashtra v. Marutysripati Dubal[2], where it was contended that the right to life ensured by Article 21also includes the right to die.

Consider in the event of a sick patient or an individual in PVS that is there any desire for recuperation to speed up the course of death for diminishing the time of enduring eventually comprises an option to live with pride. includes a right to death in furtherance to that honorable high court struck down section 309 of The Indian Penal Code 1860 which is regarding the punishment to a person attempting suicide declared as unconstitutional.

In this case, a police constable developed a mental illness after a road accident. He was suffering from various mental depression and instability. One day he poured kerosene oil on his body and tries to set himself. he was stopped by police, and after that he was booked under sec 309. It was brought before the Bombay high court challenging the validity of sec 309.

FurtherAndhra Pradesh high court in ChennaJagdeeshwar v. State of Andhra Pradesh[3]held that option to kick the bucket is certifiably not a crucial right ensured under Article 21, subsequently, sec 309 isn't illegal.

The matter came before the supreme court of India in P. Rathinam v. Union of India[4]where a division bench headed by Justice R.M. Sahai and Justice Hasaria supported the Bombay high court which was decided in the Maruti sripati dubal case which declared sec 309 as unconstitutional as it is hampering right to die in context with the right to life under Article 21.

The court observed that the right to life also means the right to not live. The supreme court further observed that penalizing a person who is mentally unfit or depressed sets out an extra burden to the victim which is completely unethical.

Various critics pointed out various analogies after this judgment that if sec 309 was declared unconstitutional then it would create a severe impact on the young immature minds. People usually suffer from various mental stress especially the younger generation due to lack of proper mentorship took the unexpected decision of ending their life after getting low marks or running into a financial crisis which ultimately creates a negative impact on the family as well society. Society.

In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab[5]Supporting the Andhra Pradesh High Court verdict, a five-judge constitutional panel overruled the P Rathinam case and correctly stated that the right to life does not include the right to death. The right to life is a natural right, while the right to death is an unnatural termination or extinction of life, according to the court.

Euthanasia alludes to intentionally taking somebody's life, usually to relieve suffering[6]. The right to life includes the right to live with dignity but when we consider euthanasia a patient is in severe pain so his/her dignity itself is redundant.

There are two types of euthanasia:
  1. Active euthanasia:
    Act of injecting lethal substances into patients in a vegetative state. Active euthanasia is still not legalized
  2. Passive euthanasia:
    Halting and removing artificial life support machines, medicines, and food that only prolong the patient in a vegetative state.

The path-breaking judgment that came into the limelight of the general public is Aruna Ramchandra shanbaug v.Union of India[7]. A seat headed by Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha Misra set some hard boundaries of passive euthanasia. When we are dealing with the right to live with dignity then we have to consider in the event of a sick patient or an individual in PVS that is there any expectation of recuperation to speed up the course of death for diminishing the time of enduring eventually comprises an option to live with poise.

In Common cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India,[8]the Supreme Court of India authorized detached Euthanasia by the withdrawal of life backing to individuals who are in a long-lasting vegetative state. In that case, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the context of Article 21.

Article 32 of the constitution seeks to declare the right to die with dignity as a basic right. Allowing the first appeal in favor of the petitioner SC permitted passive euthanasia and gave a wider direction to that. The court in exercising power Under Art 142 set out the system relating to the execution of the Advance Medical Directive and give rules to give impact detached willful extermination.

Court has over and over deciphered the different upsides and downsides of decriminalizing the Right to Life. There are different parts of the option to pass on when we are expressly centering and getting it adjusted as the right to life. The conflict introduced under the steady gaze of different high courts is that it considers every person as state property and it is the obligation of the state to safeguard them. There is a need to patch up the way to deal with tackling it easily and the current socio-legitimate circumstance should be thought about.

  1. 11 Top Quotes on Human Rights (, 10 December 2015) accessed 6 February 2022.
  2. Maruti ShripatiDubal vs State Of Maharashtra AIR 1997 SC 411.
  3. ChennaJagdeeshwar v. state of Andhra Pradesh1988 cri LJ 549.
  4. P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 394.
  5. Gyan kaur v. State of Punjab (1996) 2 SCC 648.
  6. What Is Euthanasia? Types, Legal Status, Facts, Controversy, And (Healthline, 29 May 2018) accessed 9 February 2022.
  7. Aruna Ramchandra shanbaug v Union of India AIR 2011 SC 1290.
  8. Common cause( A Regd. Society) v. Union of India AIR 2018 SC 1665

Law Article in India

Ask A Lawyers

You May Like

Legal Question & Answers

Lawyers in India - Search By City

Copyright Filing
Online Copyright Registration


How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi


How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...

Increased Age For Girls Marriage


It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...

Facade of Social Media


One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...

Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...


The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India: A...


The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a concept that proposes the unification of personal laws across...

Role Of Artificial Intelligence In Legal...


Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing various sectors of the economy, and the legal i...

Lawyers Registration
Lawyers Membership - Get Clients Online

File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly