Important Cases Relating To Euthanasia In India
No law in India forbids or declares compassion killing. Euthanasia or “mercy killing” has long been a contentious legal and social issue due to the numerous terrible scenarios that have been depicted in a variety of facts and circumstances.
There have been occasional claims that the Indian Constitution’s Article 21 right to a dignified existence includes the freedom to die.
It is advised that a patient should be allowed to meet his death to be relieved from suffering and anguish when the dying process causes a long delay and unbearable suffering for the patient and his loved ones.
There is a claim that the right to life and the right to die with dignity are interconnected. However, there is currently no legislation in this domain from the Indian Parliament. On occasion, the Supreme Court has offered definitions for the term “euthanasia.”
Euthanasia is forbidden by Section 300 Exception 5 of the India Penal Code (IPC), which classifies it as criminal homicide that is not murder.
However, more and more social scientists and advocates are realizing that euthanasia for terminally ill individuals needs to be legalized. If passed, such a law would have to provide sufficient safeguards, supervision, and control to guard against misuse of the provision.
In addition, Section 309 and 306, if the Penal Code make suicide attempts illegal in and of themselves. As a result, the Supreme Court heard several challenges to Sections 306 and 309.
Article 3 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution protect the right to life. Hence, every aspect of the right to life has always been subject to judicial scrutiny and is contingent upon the situation.
The right to die is included in this section as well. It is believed that euthanasia is a “good death” and “mercy killing.”
Some think that there are situations when a person is forced to die rather than be given the choice to pass away. Everyone is entitled to a decent existence if they stay within certain limits, and they must try to overcome such difficult circumstances.
He or she must not slant forward in the direction of such a situation. Today’s society defends the idea that a person should have the choice to choose death in certain situations.
In this case, the government and the Parliament should create the necessary laws and regulations to stop abuses. The reasons for and against euthanasia as well as its present legal status will be discussed in this essay.
Important Cases Relating To Euthanasia In India
- Union of India v. P. Rathinam/Naghbhusan Patnaik, AIR 1994 SC 1844
In 1994, a division of the Supreme Court headed by Justices R.M. Sahai and B.L. Hansaria overruled an Andhra ruling in the Chenna Jagdeshwar case and affirmed decisions made by the Bombay and Delhi High Court in the instances of Maruti Shripati Dubal and Sanjaya Kumar, while also granting petitions.
The two petitioners questioned the validity of Section 309 of the IPC, claiming that it breached Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. In ruling to strike down Section 309 of the IPC, the Supreme Court stated that “it is a cruel and illogical regulation violating Article 21 of the Constitution.”
- Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 648: 1996 Cr LJ 1660
In P. Rathinam/Naghbhusan Patnaik, the Supreme Court’s 1994 and 1996 decisions were reversed by a five-member Constitution Bench.
The petition challenging the constitutionally of S. 306, which punished an act that was nothing more than assisting a person in exercising his fundamental “right to die” under Article 21, was dismissed by the SC, which upheld S. 306, IPC, as constitutional and declared unconstitutional.
Eradicating life is not a part of protecting it. The Court further ruled that S. 306 of the IPC can exist independently of S. 309 and is a separate offence.
The Court ruled in Section 309, IPC, that the “right to life” established by Article 21 of the Constitution did not encompass the “right to die” or the “right to be killed.” Consequently, the Court held that an attempt at suicide under Section 306 of the IPC is well within the bounds of the Constitution and is neither null and void nor supra vires. It follows that if there is a “right to die,” it is compatible with the “right to life,” just as death cannot coexist with either.
- Union Of India and Others v. Common Cause, AIR2005 SC4442
The petitioner, a registered group, claimed that the right to a dignified dying ought to be added to the list of essential rights in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution of 1950. The right to a dignified life and the right to a dignified death are mutually exclusive, according to society.
It was stated that under circumstances where a patient’s condition is continuously deteriorating, a cure is not possible, and the patient is always approaching death, everyone has the right to choose whether to live or die.
It was contended that the right to a dignified death is covered by an interconnected and complicated clause in Article 21.
Passive euthanasia should be legalised since it relieves the sufferer of an unbearably painful illness that is incurable. It relieves the victim of such suffering and anguish. A painless illness and dignified death ought to be the patient’s entitlement.
The court decided that the right to a dignified death is a fundamental component of society and that everyone is entitled to one.
Any mentally competent individual should be able to refuse medical treatment, including the withholding of interventions that could save their life.
The decision mandated committee establishment to carry out oversight duties.
Passive euthanasia should be legalised since it relieves the sufferer of an unbearably painful illness that is incurable. It relieves the victim of such suffering and anguish.
A painless, dignified death is a fundamental component of society and everyone is entitled to one.
Any mentally competent individual should be able to refuse medical treatment, including the withholding of interventions that could save their life. The decision mandated committee establishment to carry out oversight duties.
Conclusion
Society must determine when to amend a law, and new laws are being codified daily. Most legal principles existed before due process of law, but they were based more on custom than on codification.
The legislators need to look at the entire situation and the socio-legal conditions to give the same from an Indian standpoint.
The SC has examined the underlying motives of those responsible for the lack of consideration given to active euthanasia. The Indian Supreme Court has given its approval to passive euthanasia and commanded the drafting of laws defining its limitations.
The SC was also in favour of establishing a panel to supervise the carrying out of “mercy killing.” The SC allowed the patient’s peaceful death and gave priority to his suffering.
The right to a dignified death is a positive extension of the right to life as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution,
While it is admirable that passive euthanasia is now legal, the Parliament needs to draft the necessary laws and regulations to ensure that is implemented as effectively as possible. It would help to make things clearer.
