Authored By: Aarya Kapoor
ILS Law College
- CASE TITLE AND CITATION
Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs. Union of India (2018)
AIR 2018 SC 1665
- COURT NAME AND BENCH
Supreme Court of India
Chief Justice Dipak Misra, A.K. Sikri, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.
- DATE OF JUDGEMENT
9th March, 2018
- PARTIES INVOLVED
Petitioner: Common Cause (A Regd. Society)
Common Cause is an NGO based in New Delhi, India. It seeks to increase public policy reforms through advocacy and engagement with policy makers.1 Respondent: Union of India
The Union of India represented the state’s position on euthanasia and end-of-life medical decisions.
- FACTS OF THE CASE
A writ petition sought to declare “Right to die with dignity” as a Fundamental Right under Article 21 – to ensure that persons of terminally ill health could have recourse to execute a living will or Advance Medical Directive.2 They also sought for the appointment of an expert committee comprising lawyers, doctors and social scientists to determine the aspect of living wills.3
- ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India also included the right to die with dignity?
- Whether voluntary and involuntary use of passive euthanasia is legal? If so, under what circumstances?
- Whether an advanced directive and/or living will should be legally recognised? If so, under what circumstances?
7. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
Petitioner:
(a) That every individual has a right to make a decision about the continuance or discontinuance4 of their life, when they have reached a state where death is not far away and their health has reached an irreversible deteriorative state.
(b) That every individual has a right to die with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. Under the concept of bodily autonomy, an individual should have the recourse to not accept any treatment / procedure that puts them under life support without any hope of recovery.
(c) That the advancements and developments in medicine and treatment sometimes prolong the process of death, making the situation agonising for both the patient and their close family and/or friends.
(d) That making a living will or issuing an advance directive has become important today because medical treatments can often continue even when recovery is impossible.
(e) That strict penal laws make doctors unsure about whether they should use or stop modern life-support techniques in exceptional cases.
Respondent:
(a) That the State had considered regulating euthanasia but it was found unfavourable by the Ministry of Health and Welfare.5
(b) That the right to die with dignity is not recognised under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as it includes but is not limited to the right to availability of shelter, healthcare and life.
(c) That after the Supreme Court gave its judgment in Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India and Others6, the Ministry of Law and Justice said that the directions given by the Court should be followed in cases dealing with euthanasia or withdrawal of life support and treated as law.
(d) That the right to die with dignity is not envisaged under the Constitution as the saving of life is the primary duty of the State.
- JUDGEMENT
The Court was of the opinion that the right to die with dignity was a fundamental right7, along with giving a distinction between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is the ending of an individual’s life, in their best interests, by performing a specific procedure due to which death will be induced. Passive euthanasia involves the bringing about of an individual’s death by withdrawing or withholding life supporting procedures.8 The Court observed that the idea of Advance Medical Directives had been clearly recognised in India and that the right to make such a directive supports an individual’s right to self-determination and bodily integrity. In situations where patients are incapable of making an informed choice, the Court stated that a “best interest” approach may be adopted, allowing a guardian to make the decision on their behalf.
The Supreme Court allowed the petition in part and recognised the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court upheld the legality of passive euthanasia under strict safeguards and permitted individuals to execute Advance Medical Directives (Living Wills) specifying their medical preferences in case of terminal illness or permanent vegetative state.
The Court issued detailed guidelines regarding the execution, authentication, and implementation of such directives until Parliament enacted a suitable law.
These included:
(a) A person of sound mind and full understanding could make a living will, duly attested before witnesses and a Judicial Magistrate.
(b) In the absence of a directive, a “best interest” decision could be made by the patient’s family, subject to approval by medical boards and a judicial magistrate.
(c) The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare was directed to circulate and operationalise these guidelines in all hospitals.
Hence, the appeal was allowed, and the Court’s decision modified the law on euthanasia laid down in Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011) by providing broader recognition and clearer procedural safeguards.
- RATIO DECIDENDI
The Court’s reasoning rested on the interpretation of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. It held that this right is not merely about living but living with dignity, and by extension, includes the right to die with dignity in cases of terminal illness.
Bodily Autonomy and Self-Determination: An individual has the autonomy to refuse medical treatment and to decide the course of their own body.
Distinction Between Active and Passive Euthanasia: The Court affirmed that while active euthanasia (directly causing death) remains illegal, passive euthanasia (withdrawing life support) may be permissible to preserve dignity.
State’s Duty vs. Individual Liberty: The bench balanced the State’s duty to protect life with an individual’s liberty to avoid unnecessary suffering and indignity. Doctrine of Parens Patriae: In cases where the patient is incapacitated, the State (through courts and medical boards) acts as a guardian to ensure decisions are made in the patient’s best interest.
Important Precedents Cited:-
- Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)9: Recognised that the right to life includes the right to die with dignity under certain circumstances.
- Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011)10: Allowed passive euthanasia under limited circumstances but without recognising living wills.
- A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras11 and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India12: Reiterated that personal liberty under Article 21 must be interpreted expansively.
The judgment thus evolved the doctrine that the right to life and dignity also encompasses the right to refuse life-prolonging medical treatment.13
- CONCLUSION
This landmark judgment marked a progressive shift in Indian constitutional jurisprudence, humanising the concept of life and death. It bridged the gap between individual autonomy and medical ethics, ensuring that citizens are not forced to endure prolonged suffering against their will.
The decision also strengthened the doctrine of privacy and self-determination14, extending it to medical choices.
However, while the Court’s guidelines filled a legislative vacuum, the implementation remains complex due to the need for administrative oversight and public awareness. Still, the judgment stands as a milestone for human rights and medical jurisprudence in India, affirming that the right to live with dignity inherently includes the right to die with dignity.
Reference(S):
1 Common Cause ‘About us’ <https://www.commoncause.in/page.php?id=2> accessed 28 Oct 2025.
2 Centre for Communication Governance ‘Common cause (A Regd. Society) vs Union of India <https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org/case/common-cause-a-regd-society-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors> accessed 28 Oct 2025.
3 Supreme Court Observer ‘Euthanasia and the Right to Die with Dignity’ <https://www.scobserver.in/cases/common-cause-euthanasia-and-the-right-to-die-with-dignity-case-background/> accessed 28 Oct 2025.
4 Manupatra Academy, ‘Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs. UOI & Ors.’ MANU/SC/0232/2018
5 Centre for Communication Governance ‘Common cause (A Regd. Society) vs Union of India <https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org/case/common-cause-a-regd-society-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors> accessed 28 Oct 2025.
6 Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India and Ors, AIR 2011 SC 1290.
7 Smt. Gian Kaur v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 1257.
8 Brassington, I. What passive euthanasia is. BMC Med Ethics 21, 41 (2020). <https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00481-7> accessed 28 Oct 2025.
9 Smt. Gian Kaur v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 1257.
10 Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India and Ors, AIR 2011 SC 1290.
11 A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras .Union of India, 1950 AIR 27
12 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597
13 iPleaders, ‘Right to Die with Dignity’ <https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-to-die-with-dignity/> accessed 29 Oct 2025.
14 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), AIR 2018 SC (SUPP) 1841
