Introduction
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees everyone the right to life and personal liberty. At first glance, it seems pretty clear-cut — it shields us from being unjustly stripped of our life or freedom. However, over the years, courts have interpreted this article in ways that stretch far beyond its straightforward wording. One of the most sensitive and thought-provoking questions that has come up is whether this “right to life” can also encompass the right to die — especially in dire situations like terminal illness, where living on means enduring prolonged suffering. This is where the idea of passive euthanasia enters the conversation.
What Exactly is Article 21 About?
Article 21 says:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
While it may seem short, it’s one of the most significant rights we possess. Courts have leveraged it to establish related rights, such as the right to privacy, the right to a dignified life, and even the right to a clean environment. Now, the question arises: Does the right to live with dignity also encompass the right to die with dignity?
The Big Debate: Does “Right to Life” Include “Right to Die”?
Two main perspectives clash on this topic:
- Life is sacred- Life is a precious gift, and it’s the responsibility of the state to protect it at all costs.
- Dignity matters– When life turns into nothing but unbearable suffering with no chance of recovery, shouldn’t individuals have the right to choose a peaceful and dignified way to end their pain?
How the Courts Have Looked at It
1. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)
In this case, the Supreme Court said that the right to life does not include the right to die. But it also noted that dying with dignity, in cases of terminal illness, is different from committing suicide.
2. Aruna Shanbaug Case (2011)
This was a turning point. Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse, was in a permanent vegetative state for decades after a brutal assault. Although the Court refused to allow euthanasia in her specific case, it did permit passive euthanasia in India under strict rules.
Passive euthanasia refers to the decision to withdraw life-support treatment, allowing nature to take its course. The Court clarified that hospitals can only proceed with this under two conditions:
- A medical board must confirm the situation.
- The High Court must give its approval.
3. Common Cause v. Union of India (2018)
This judgment made history. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to die with dignity is part of Article 21. It legalized passive euthanasia and introduced living wills, which are written documents where a person can state in advance that they do not want life support if they end up in an irreversible medical condition.
Passive vs. Active Euthanasia
Passive euthanasia – This refers to stopping life-prolonging treatments and allowing a person to pass away naturally. (It’s now legal in India, with certain safeguards in place.)
Active euthanasia – This involves taking direct action, such as administering a lethal dose, to end someone’s life. (Currently, this remains illegal in India.)
Safeguards to Prevent Misuse
To ensure that passive euthanasia is handled responsibly, the Court has established some important safeguards:
- Individuals need to provide written consent ahead of time (through a living will) or have their wishes confirmed by family members.
- A medical board must verify that recovery is not an option. – The final decision must be approved by the High Court.
Why This Matters?
The 2018 ruling extends beyond being just a legal decision — it’s a heartfelt recognition of personal choice.
It:
- Honors individuals’ rights to shape their medical journeys.
- Strikes a balance between the importance of life and the significance of dignity.
- Provides families with a compassionate framework for making end-of-life decisions.
The challenges ahead
- There’s no detailed law in place yet – India is still navigating through court guidelines instead of having a specific piece of legislation, which can lead to a lot of confusion.
- Risk of misuse – Vulnerable individuals, particularly the elderly, might find themselves pressured into decisions without the necessary protections in place.
- Cultural beliefs– Several religious traditions in India are against any form of intentionally ending life, even if it’s passive.
conclusion:
Article 21 has evolved over the years to encompass not just the right to live, but also the right to die with dignity. Legalizing passive euthanasia in India is a compassionate step that honors personal autonomy in the most challenging situations. The future hinges on establishing clear laws, raising public awareness, and implementing strict safeguards to ensure that this right is exercised for genuine relief rather than being misused. Ultimately, dignity is essential — both in life and death.
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India