RECONSTRUCTING THE RIGHT TO DIE: LEGAL AND ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES ON EUTHANASIA IN INDIA

The debate surrounding the right to die and euthanasia remains one of the most ethically complex and legally unsettled issues in India today. At its heart lies Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty[2]. Over the years, the judiciary has interpreted this provision to encompass not merely the right to exist, but the right to live with dignity. This expansion naturally leads to a difficult, even uncomfortable, question, “Does the right to live with dignity also include the right to die with dignity especially for those enduring terminal illness or intractable suffering?”. The Indian legal stance on this question has undergone a significant transformation. In Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab 1996[3], the Supreme Court unequivocally rejected the idea that the right to die could be read into Article 21. However, this rigid position softened in later rulings, in Aruna Shanbaug 2011[4], and more decisively in Common Cause v. Union of India 2018[5], the Court recognized the constitutional validity of passive euthanasia and upheld the legality of living wills. Many countries in the world have made clear laws about euthanasia. These laws help people decide how they want to die, especially when they are very sick and have no chance of getting better. But in India, we don’t have a proper law on this yet. The Indian government has been very careful and slow in dealing with this issue. This is not just because of legal reasons, but also because people in India have different opinions based on religion, culture, and personal values. Even though the Supreme Court has said that passive euthanasia is allowed in some cases, it is still very hard to actually use this option. The process is very confusing and difficult. So, what looks good in theory doesn’t always work in real life. This is why India now needs a simple and kind law. The right to die with dignity should not just be words in a judgment. It should be something real that people can actually use when they truly need it.

Keywords – Right to Life, Right to Die, Passive Euthanasia

INTRODUCTION

Imagine a life, where each breath feels like a burden, where suffering outlasts hope, and dignity fades behind hospital curtains, when should our law, doctors and families allow a goodbye?

Life is a strange mix of wonder, fragility, and mystery. For centuries, people have tried to understand what it really means. Philosophers ask big questions about its purpose. Scientists study how it works. Spiritual leaders treat it with deep respect. But life has never just been about the body working about cells growing or a heart beating. Around the idea of life, we’ve built laws, values, and the belief that every person deserves to live with dignity. But there’s the thing, you can’t talk about life without also talking about death, no matter how much we avoid the topic, death is always there, in the background. And in today’s world, with all our medical technology, we’ve become even more uncomfortable with it. Not long ago, people often died at home, with their family around them. Now, death usually happens in hospitals under bright lights, with machines keeping the body alive, even when the person’s mind or dignity seems to have gone. These changes make us think differently about what it means to die and whether we should keep life going at any cost. This raises a hard but important question if we have the right to live, do we also have the right to say, “that’s enough”? Should the law allow someone to say no to more treatments when only machines are keeping them alive? Can choosing peace and dignity over more pain and procedures be a legal right? These are not just questions for experts or courts. They’re deeply personal. Anyone who has seen a loved one suffer in a hospital bed knows how real and painful these choices can be. And this is where the debate around euthanasia truly begins.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution gives every person the right to life. But over time, the courts have said that this right also includes the right to live with dignity. This brings up a difficult question, “does this right to live with dignity also include the right to die with dignity?, especially in cases where a person is suffering, and death seems more peaceful than staying alive through machines.

This article looks at how our courts have slowly changed their thinking from always protecting life no matter what, to now also thinking about a person’s choice and dignity when they are dying.

UNDERSTANDING EUTHANASIA –MEANINGS AND MISUNDERSTANDINGS

The word “euthanasia” comes from Greek, “eu” means good, and “thanatos” means death, so it means “a good death.” Today, when we talk about euthanasia in law or ethics, we usually mean ending a person’s life on purpose to stop them from suffering too much especially when they are very sick, with no hope of getting better. But euthanasia is not just one simple idea. To properly understand the legal and moral issues around euthanasia, it’s important to know the different types it can take. Each type of euthanasia brings up different questions for doctors, lawmakers, and people who think about ethics.

• Active Euthanasia – Involves a direct action (e.g., administering a lethal substance) with the intention to end life. This form is typically illegal in most jurisdictions due to its proximity to homicide.
• Passive Euthanasia – Entails withholding or withdrawing medical interventions—such as ventilators, feeding tubes, or resuscitation thereby allowing natural death to occur. Passive euthanasia has been judicially recognized in India under specific conditions post-Aruna Shanbaug and Common Cause.
• Voluntary Euthanasia – Performed with the patient’s informed consent, it represents the individual’s autonomous decision to end their life in situations of intolerable suffering.
• Non-Voluntary Euthanasia – Administered when the patient is incapable of consent (e.g., in a persistent vegetative state) and decisions are made by surrogates or medical boards.
• Involuntary Euthanasia – Performed against the patient’s will; morally and legally impermissible, equated with murder.

People often mix up euthanasia with similar terms like suicide, assisted suicide, and physician-assisted dying. But these are different things, and it’s important to understand the difference especially in law. Suicide means a person takes their own life on purpose. Assisted suicide is when someone else helps by giving the person the means or information to end their life. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is when a doctor gives the patient a medicine that can end life but the patient takes it themselves. Euthanasia is different because someone else, like a doctor, directly ends the person’s life, usually to relieve suffering. These aren’t just small wording differences they matter a lot in law. In India, both suicide and helping someone commit suicide have been treated as crimes, according to Sections 226 and 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita[6] (earlier known as Sections 309 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code).[7] Although courts have sometimes questioned whether punishing suicide is fair, the government still mostly treats it as a crime. This strict approach is very different from how many countries now think about these issues. Around the world, more legal systems are starting to support a kinder, more understanding view especially when it comes to people who are suffering.

HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL ROOTS OF EUTHANASIA

Euthanasia, or choosing to die to end pain from a serious illness, is often seen as a modern issue. But in truth, people have been thinking about it for thousands of years. Many religions and cultures have talked about whether it is right to let someone die peacefully when they are suffering. In ancient India, people believed that when someone was very sick, it was better to let them die naturally. Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism had ways of accepting death with peace and dignity. For example, in Hinduism, prayopavesha is a peaceful fast until death, done only after completing one’s duties. Jainism has sallekhana, a similar practice. These are not seen as suicide but as spiritual choices. Hindu stories and teachings also support the idea that choosing death, if done calmly and with purpose, can be part of a spiritual path. Buddhism usually avoids euthanasia because of its focus on non-harm and karma. But in rare cases, if it is done with pure compassion, it may be accepted. In contrast, religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam believe that only God can take life. They see euthanasia and suicide as wrong. The Catholic Church says life is sacred and must be protected, even during suffering. Western thinkers also talked about this. Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers sometimes supported choosing death when life became painful or meaningless. Later, during the Enlightenment, people like David Hume (On Suicide[8]) and John Stuart Mill said that individuals should have control over their own life and body. In short, the idea of dying with dignity is not new. Across history, people have debated whether choosing death in some cases is a moral or spiritual decision.

METHODS OF EUTHANASIA

The way euthanasia is done matters a lot, not just in medical terms but also in law and ethics. It can be done in different ways, and each type has different rules and meanings.

Active Euthanasia means giving a patient something, like a lethal injection, to cause death and end their suffering. It is done with clear intent to help someone die quickly. Some countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada allow it under strict rules the patient must be very sick, must give consent many times, and doctors must approve it. But in India, active euthanasia is illegal. If a doctor does this, it is treated as murder or culpable homicide under Sections 103 and 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita[9] (earlier IPC Sections 302 and 304[10]), even if the patient agrees.

Passive Euthanasia means stopping treatment or life support and letting the patient die naturally. This could mean turning off machines or stopping medicines when there is no hope of recovery. The goal is not to kill, but to avoid unnecessary suffering. The Supreme Court of India allowed passive euthanasia in the Aruna Shanbaug case (2011) and confirmed it again in Common Cause (2018), saying it is allowed under Article 21 of the Constitution (Right to Life with Dignity). Patients can even write a “living will” to say they don’t want treatment in certain conditions. This form of euthanasia is legal in India.

Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) is when a doctor gives the patient the means (like medicine) to end their own life, but the patient takes the final step. This is allowed in some places like some U.S. states and Switzerland, but it is not legal in India. In India, this is treated as abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (earlier IPC Section 306).

In short, passive euthanasia is legal in India, but active euthanasia and PAS are still crimes. This shows a gap in the law and raises the need for a full legal system that clearly balances suffering, choice, and dignity at the end of life.

CONSENT IN EUTHANASIA

Consent is at the heart of any discussion about euthanasia. It’s what separates a kind and respectful medical decision from a criminal act. Whether a person agrees or is even able to agree makes all the difference in how the act is seen legally and morally.

Voluntary euthanasia is when someone who is fully aware and mentally fit chooses to end their life usually because they’re suffering from a serious illness that causes pain they can’t bear. In places like the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada, this is allowed under strict rules, and doctors must make sure the person truly understands and agrees. In India, voluntary active euthanasia is not legal, but the Supreme Court, in the Common Cause case 2018, allowed people to make a “living will.” This means a person can write down in advance that if they’re ever in a situation where they can’t be cured and can’t speak for themselves, they don’t want life-prolonging treatment. This gives people more control over how they want to be treated at the end of life.

Non-voluntary euthanasia happens when the person can’t give consent maybe because they’re in a coma or have a mental disability. In these cases, someone else like a guardian or a court has to decide for them. This is much more complicated, because we can never really know what the person would have wanted. In India, the Aruna Shanbaug case laid down a strict process: a panel of doctors must examine the situation, and only the High Court can give permission. This is done to make sure the decision is not misused and is truly in the person’s best interest.

Involuntary euthanasia is when a person’s life is ended against their will even though they could have spoken for themselves. This is completely illegal and is treated as murder in every country. Taking someone’s life without their permission is never acceptable, no matter what the reason.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST LEGALIZING EUTHANASIA

Even though courts and philosophers have supported the right to die with dignity, many people in India still oppose euthanasia. Their concerns are not just legal, but also deeply emotional, cultural, and moral. In India, religion plays a big role in how people view life and death. Most major religions like Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity believe that life is a sacred gift from God. Ending a life even to relieve pain is often seen as wrong or sinful. Because of this, many people may resist laws on euthanasia, no matter what the courts say. There’s also fear that euthanasia could be misused. In families where there are fights over property or inheritance, someone might pressure a sick or elderly person into agreeing to die, just to get rid of them. People who are already vulnerable like the disabled, the elderly, or the poor might be made to feel like a burden. Some argue that allowing euthanasia goes against the Constitution, especially Article 21, which protects the right to life. They worry that if the law allows life to be ended even with consent it could weaken the basic idea that life is sacred and must be protected. Others say legalising euthanasia in a country like India, where many people still don’t have access to proper healthcare, could be dangerous. It might become a cheaper substitute for real medical care. Instead of being treated, the poor might be offered death as an option. Critics also believe that the real issue isn’t that death is unavoidable it’s that we don’t do enough to reduce suffering. They suggest we should focus on building better pain relief systems, hospices, and emotional support instead of making euthanasia legal. There’s also fear that if euthanasia becomes normal, it could turn into a business where people are pushed towards it because it’s easier or cheaper than long-term care.

Lastly, in a country where families are expected to care for each other, especially elders, there’s a worry that euthanasia could break that bond. Families might start choosing convenience over care, and society might lose its sense of duty to look after its own.

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF LEGALIZING EUTHANASIA

Supporters of euthanasia believe that when someone is going through unbearable suffering, they should have the right to choose when and how to die. For them, this is about respecting a person’s freedom, dignity, and compassion. If someone is living in constant pain, with no hope of recovery, giving them the choice to end their suffering is seen as a humane and kind response. One of the strongest arguments for euthanasia is compassion. When a person is stuck in a life of endless pain whether physical or mental forcing them to stay alive can feel more like cruelty than care. Advocates believe that allowing a peaceful, painless death can be more caring than prolonging misery just for the sake of it. The idea of bodily autonomy is also key here. Just like we can say yes or no to medical treatment, we should be able to say no to life-support if it only extends suffering. Forcing treatment on someone who doesn’t want it can be both ethically wrong and legally questionable. Families, too, often suffer emotionally, physically, and financially while watching a loved one slowly fade away. Euthanasia can offer closure, a chance for patients and families to say goodbye with dignity, instead of endless waiting and helpless pain. From a healthcare perspective, allowing euthanasia in extreme cases can also help free up hospital resources for patients who still have a chance at recovery. Beds and medical care should not be locked in for months or years by people who are already beyond medical help if they would rather not continue.

Finally, if our Constitution gives us the right to live with dignity under Article 21, then surely that includes the right not to live in a state of constant suffering and loss of dignity. Just like we have the freedom to speak or stay silent, the right to live must also include the right to decide when that life no longer feels worth living. In the end, the debate on euthanasia is not just about life and death. It’s a deeper conversation about freedom, ethics, and what it means to truly care. Both sides bring up serious and important concerns. Any law we make needs to find a middle path, one that respects individual choices while ensuring strong safeguards and compassion for all. 

RIGHT TO LIFE AND RIGHT TO DIE UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

The issue of euthanasia and the right to die is closely linked to how Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is understood. Article 21 says that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law.” While this was originally meant to protect people from unfair actions by the government, over time, courts have expanded its meaning. Today, Article 21 is seen as not just about life, but about living with dignity. It includes rights like the right to privacy and, more recently, the right to die with dignity. This shows how the Constitution has evolved to reflect more personal and humane concerns, especially in matters like euthanasia.

Constitutional Framework

Over the years, courts have given this Article a wide and meaningful interpretation. They have said that the right to life under Article 21 is not just about being alive it’s about living with dignity and having the freedom to make choices. This right continues until the very end of a person’s life. That’s why some believe it should also include the right to die with dignity, especially when someone is suffering without hope of recovery. However, this doesn’t mean that the law allows suicide. The courts have tried to draw a careful balance between respecting dignity at the end of life and not encouraging death before its natural time.

Judicial Evolution

The Indian judiciary’s treatment of euthanasia has undergone considerable evolution through landmark cases –

1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 – Expanded the scope of Article 21 to include substantive due process, integrating Articles 14 and 19 with Article 21. This decision laid the interpretive foundation for future right-based expansions, including the right to die with dignity.
2. Maruti Sripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra 1987[11] – The Bombay High Court held Section 309 IPC, which criminalizes attempted suicide, “unconstitutional”, reasoning that the right to die is implicit within the right to life.
3. Rathinam v. Union of India 1994[12] – Affirmed that Article 21 includes the right to die, striking down Section 309 IPC as violative of fundamental rights.
4. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab 1996 – A Constitution Bench overruled Rathinam, holding that the right to life does not include the right to die, but crucially, introduced the concept of the “right to die with dignity”, especially in the context of terminal illness.
5. Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India 2011 – In this harrowing case of a nurse in a permanent vegetative state for over three decades, the Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia under strict judicial oversight. The judgment laid down conditions for withdrawal of life support in exceptional cases.
6. Common Cause v. Union of India 2018 – A Constitution Bench gave a historic decision that legalized passive euthanasia and confirmed that the right to die with dignity is part of Article 21. The Court also stamped the legality of advance directives or living wills, which allow people to refuse life-sustaining treatment when in a terminal state.

Indian constitutional thinking on euthanasia shows a careful effort to protect human dignity while still respecting the value of life. Courts have said that people have a right to die with dignity, but to make this right work in real life, we need proper laws, rules, and ethical guidance. When India finally makes a clear law on end-of-life choices, it will have to strike a sensitive balance between personal freedom and protection, between compassion and caution, and between preserving life and allowing someone to let go of it.

COMPARATIVE JURISPRUDENCE

Around the world, countries see and treat euthanasia differently, based on their own culture, ethics, and legal beliefs. Some completely ban it, some are still debating it, and others have allowed it under strict rules. These differences usually depend on how each society views personal freedom, pain, and the meaning of life.

Looking at other countries shows that even though laws and rules are different, many democratic nations have found ways to allow euthanasia by focusing on human rights and dignity. However, they also make sure there are strong rules in place to prevent misuse and respect moral concerns

LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES IN INDIA

Despite significant judicial progress, the absence of comprehensive legislation remains a critical gap in India’s end-of-life jurisprudence. One notable development in this regard is –

The Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patients (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) Bill, 2016[20]

The Bill supports the use of advance directives and gives people the right to say no to medical treatment. It applies to terminally ill patients over the age of 16. To allow passive euthanasia, it requires a review by a medical board, approval from the High Court, and offers legal protection to both the patient and doctors. It is based on the Law Commission’s 196th and 241st reports. While the Bill hasn’t become law yet, it shows growing legal awareness around end-of-life rights and strongly reflects the ideas in the Common Cause judgment. If passed, it could mark a new chapter by creating a proper legal structure for the right to die with dignity in India.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The right to die with dignity doesn’t go against the right to life in fact, in some cases, it may be the most compassionate way of respecting life. When someone is suffering so much that life loses its meaning and dignity, choosing to die peacefully can be a reasonable and humane choice. To make this right real and workable in India, some important steps need to be taken.

First, India needs a clear and detailed law that defines how passive euthanasia should be carried out, with strong safeguards to prevent misuse. Second, there should be well-established medical review boards across the country that follow the same fair and consistent process when reviewing such cases. People also need to be more aware of advance directives legal documents that let them express their wishes about medical treatment in case they can’t speak for themselves later. This allows individuals to plan their end-of-life care with dignity and peace of mind.

At the same time, India must improve access to good palliative and hospice care. People should not feel forced to choose death because they have no other way to ease their suffering. The goal should be to make dying with dignity one choice among many not a substitute for good healthcare.

Ultimately, India needs a thoughtful and balanced legal system, grounded in respect for human dignity and constitutional values. This system should protect people, support their choices, and bring compassion into the law, especially at life’s most difficult moments. 

CONCLUSION

 India’s evolving stance on euthanasia reflects a deep respect for human dignity without dismissing the sanctity of life. Recognizing the right to die with dignity under Article 21 is a major step, but it needs a clear legal framework rooted in ethics, safeguards, and consistency. The 2016 Draft Bill is a promising start, but must be tested for practical gaps. As India shapes its own response guided by constitutional values rather than borrowed ideologies it must balance autonomy with protection, and compassion with caution, ensuring dignity is preserved even in death.

Reference(S):

[1] Final year LL.B, New Law College, Pune

[2] Constitution of India 1950, art 21

[3] Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996) 2 SCC 648

[4] Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011) 4 SCC 454

[5] Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) 5 SCC 1

[6] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2013, s 226, 108

[7] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 306, 309

[8] David Hume’s “On Suicide” [1777], under the title “Two Essays”

[9] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s 103, 105

[10] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 304, 304

[11] Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra 1987 Cri LJ 743 (Bom)

[12] P. Rathinam v. Union of India AIR 1994 SC 1844

[13] Sonu Sharma, “Right to die with dignity” (2023) <https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-to-die-with-dignity/#Passive_euthanasia_In_India> accessed 12th July 2025

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Byjus, “Euthanasia or mercy killing” <https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/euthanasia-or-mercy-killing/> accessed 12th July 2025

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] The Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patients (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) Bill 2016 (Draft, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare)