Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution famously guarantees that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." Judicial interpretation has significantly expanded this to include the right to live with human dignity, covering essential aspects like health, shelter, and livelihood. This expansive view raises a critical question: does the right to live with dignity implicitly include a corresponding 'right not to live', meaning the right to die or commit suicide? Examining this requires delving into constitutional provisions and landmark judicial pronouncements.
The Supreme Court's stance on the 'right to die' in relation to Article 21 is firmly established. While the right to life is interpreted broadly, it does not extend to include the right to terminate one's own life.
Constitutional Provisions and Judicial Interpretation
- Article 21: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Judicial pronouncements have expanded this to include the right to live with dignity.
- Right to Life vs. Right to Die: The fundamental distinction lies in the state's obligation to protect life versus an individual's right to end it.
Landmark Case Laws
- Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996): This Constitution Bench ruling is the definitive pronouncement. The Supreme Court unanimously held that the right to life under Article 21 is a fundamental right, but the 'right to die' is not included within it. The Court reasoned that the right to live with dignity cannot be construed as a right to terminate life itself. This judgment upheld the constitutionality of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (attempt to suicide) at the time.
- Distinction with Passive Euthanasia: While Gian Kaur prohibits the right to die, the judiciary has shown sensitivity to end-of-life decisions in specific contexts. In cases like Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011) and later refined in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court permitted passive euthanasia (withdrawal of life support) under strict guidelines and safeguards, including the concept of a 'living will'. This is seen as allowing a dignified natural death rather than conferring a right to actively end life.
- Earlier Views: Some earlier High Court judgments, like Maruti Shripati Dubal (1986), had suggested that the right to life might include the right to die, but these views were superseded by the Apex Court's ruling in Gian Kaur.
Therefore, the established legal position is that Article 21 protects the right to live with dignity but does not grant a fundamental right to die.
Conclusion
<p>In essence, the Indian Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in <em>Gian Kaur</em>, upholds the sanctity of life and explicitly excludes the 'right to die' from the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21. While the right to live with dignity is paramount, it does not translate into a right to prematurely end one's life. The nuanced legal developments concerning passive euthanasia highlight the judiciary's attempt to balance the preservation of life with the relief from unbearable suffering, allowing for a dignified end under extremely controlled circumstances, distinct from an inherent right to choose death.</p>
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.