BENCH: Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Justice A.K. Sikri, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Ashok Bhushan
FACTS:
The writ petition in this case sought a decisive ruling affirming that the ‘right to live with dignity’ under Article 21 of the Constitution inherently encompasses the ‘right to die with dignity.’ Additionally, the petition advocated for legal recognition of living wills or Advance Medical Directives, which would empower individuals in a vegetative state or suffering from terminal illnesses to make preemptive decisions regarding their medical treatment. This significant legal issue was initially placed before a three-judge Bench but was subsequently referred to a Constitution Bench due to conflicting judicial precedents concerning the legal framework governing the right to die in India.
The origins of this debate trace back to 1994 with the Supreme Court’s ruling in P. Rathinam v. Union of India, wherein a division Bench of the Apex Court held that criminalizing attempted suicide under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was unconstitutional. The Court found that this provision violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 (equality before the law and equal protection of laws) and Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India. In a progressive stance, the Court declared that the right to life must necessarily include the right to die, thereby asserting individual autonomy over end-of-life decisions.
However, this landmark ruling was overturned in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996), where a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court revisited the issue and significantly narrowed the interpretation of Article 21. The Court categorically held that the right to life under the Constitution does not extend to include the right to die. It emphasized that life is a protected and inviolable right, and any attempt to prematurely end it falls outside the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty. This ruling not only re-established the constitutional validity of Section 309 IPC but also laid the groundwork for continued legal debates on euthanasia, assisted dying, and the legitimacy of Advance Medical Directives in India.
ISSUES:
The Supreme Court framed five key issues for determination. Firstly, the Court examined whether passive euthanasia and active euthanasia are distinct concepts and, if so, how they differ in legal and ethical terms. Secondly, it considered whether the right to die with dignity falls within the broader scope of the right to live with dignity, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The third issue revolved around whether individuals in India are legally permitted to incorporate provisions for passive euthanasia in their living wills, thereby exercising autonomy over end-of-life decisions. Additionally, the Court explored whether the Law Commission of India had made any recommendations regarding the legalization of euthanasia as a means to alleviate the suffering of terminally ill patients. Lastly, the Court deliberated on whether an individual possesses the legal right to refuse medical treatment or request the withdrawal of life-support systems, ultimately leading to death.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment, recognizing the right to die with dignity as an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court upheld the legality of passive euthanasia and permitted individuals to execute a living will or an Advance Medical Directive (AMD) to ensure that their end-of-life decisions are honored. The five-judge Constitution Bench ruled that terminally ill patients or those in a persistent vegetative state have the right to refuse medical treatment, including life-support systems. Consequently, the Court laid down specific guidelines to regulate the process of passive euthanasia and the execution of living wills, ensuring that such decisions are made voluntarily, with due safeguards to prevent misuse.
The Supreme Court's decision was rooted in the principle that the right to live with dignity, as enshrined under Article 21, inherently includes the right to die with dignity. The Court distinguished between active and passive euthanasia, holding that while active euthanasia involves a deliberate act to end life and remains prohibited, passive euthanasia—which entails the withdrawal of medical treatment to allow the natural process of death—is legally permissible. The judgment relied on progressive jurisprudence, international human rights principles, and medical ethics, emphasizing that forcing a person to endure prolonged suffering in a terminal or vegetative state violates their fundamental rights. By recognizing living wills and AMDs, the Court aimed to uphold individual autonomy, allowing competent individuals to make informed choices about their medical treatment in anticipation of future incapacity.
Furthermore, the Court acknowledged the concerns regarding potential misuse and, therefore, laid down stringent guidelines for implementing passive euthanasia. It mandated that medical boards be constituted to assess the patient's condition before approving the withdrawal of life support, ensuring that the decision is made in the best interests of the patient and free from coercion. The Court also emphasized the role of judicial oversight in cases of disputes or ambiguity to prevent abuse of the provision. Recognizing advancements in medical science and changing societal attitudes, the judgment reflected a balance between the sanctity of life and the right to self-determination, affirming the evolving interpretation of fundamental rights in India.
ANALYSIS:
The Supreme Court's decision in Common Cause v. Union of India represents a significant milestone in India's legal framework concerning end-of-life care and individual autonomy. By recognizing the right to die with dignity as an essential component of the right to life under Article 21, the Court expanded the interpretation of personal liberty to encompass the ability to make informed choices about one's medical treatment. The ruling established a clear legal distinction between active and passive euthanasia, affirming that while the former remains impermissible due to its direct involvement in ending life, the latter—characterized by the withdrawal of medical treatment—may be allowed under strict legal and medical supervision. This differentiation aligns India's legal stance with international human rights norms and ethical medical practices that prioritize patient dignity over prolonged suffering.
Furthermore, the Court’s endorsement of Advance Medical Directives (AMDs) and living wills marked a progressive shift toward patient autonomy. By enabling individuals to make preemptive decisions regarding their medical treatment, the ruling protects terminally ill and vegetative-state patients from unnecessary medical intervention that prolongs suffering without therapeutic benefit. However, to prevent potential misuse, the Court introduced stringent procedural safeguards, requiring the formation of medical boards to evaluate cases and ensure that decisions to withdraw life support are made free from external pressure or coercion. Additionally, the provision for judicial oversight in cases of ambiguity or disputes serves as an important mechanism to uphold fairness and transparency in the application of passive euthanasia.
Beyond its legal ramifications, the judgment reflects a broader recognition of evolving societal attitudes toward dignity in death. By integrating advancements in medical science and ethical considerations into its reasoning, the Court acknowledged the importance of balancing state interests in preserving life with an individual's right to self-determination. This decision not only provides clarity on the legality of passive euthanasia but also reinforces the constitutional commitment to personal liberty, setting a precedent for future cases involving complex medical and ethical dilemmas.
info@adhwaitha.com
