TERM PAPER
EUTHANASIA: LEGAL STATUS AND JUDICIAL TRENDS IN INDIA
TOPIC: LIBERTY AND SOCIETY
SUBMITTED BY:
NAZIM UDDIN
ROLL NO. 210623120079
LL.M. 2 YEAR (1ST YEAR)
SUBMITTED TO:
DR. AMRENDRA KUMAR
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
YLM-201: LAW AND JUSTICE IN GLOBAL WORLD
FAULTY OF LAW
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
(2022-24)
I. INTRODUCTION
Every human being is desirous to live and enjoy the fruits of life till he dies. But sometimes
one desirous to end his life by use of unnatural means. As a results, individual request courts
and sometimes even President of India to allow euthanasia 1. When a person ends his life by
his own act we call it “suicide” but to end life of a person by others though on the request of
the deceased, is called “euthanasia”. Euthanasia, also known as "mercy killing", is a complex
and contentious issue that has garnered significant attention worldwide.
English philosopher Francis Bacon first used the term ‘euthanasia’ which literally means
‘good death’ or ‘mercy killing’2. It involves the deliberate termination of a person's life to
alleviate their suffering, especially when afflicted with a terminal or incurable medical
condition. According to the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics 3, the
definition of ‘euthanasia’ is “a deliberate interference undertaken with the express intention
of ending a life, to relieve intractable pains and agonies”. This practice raises profound legal,
moral, and societal questions, prompting extensive debates across different jurisdictions. In
India, euthanasia has emerged as a highly contested issue, engaging policymakers, healthcare
professionals, legal experts, and the general public.
The Constitution of India grants its citizens the fundamental right to life and personal liberty 4.
This constitutional guarantee has been at the heart of the debates on euthanasia, as it directly
intersects with an individual's right to die with dignity. The question of whether the right to
life includes the right to die has led to intriguing jurisprudential discussions, compelling
courts to interpret and balance competing rights and values. The landmark case of Aruna
Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India5, heard before the Supreme Court of India in 2011,
was a watershed moment in India's euthanasia discourse. The court, while recognizing the
right to die with dignity, acknowledged the need for a robust legal framework to govern
euthanasia practices. It emphasized that in the absence of such legislation, the withdrawal of
life support could only be permissible through the framework of ‘passive euthanasia’. The
court further outlined stringent guidelines that medical practitioners and family members
must follow before considering the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment.
Subsequently, the legal landscape witnessed another significant milestone with the 2018
judgment in the case of Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India 6. The Supreme
Court, in this case, upheld the right to execute "advance medical directives," also known as
1
Roshan Jaiswal, “Former Gyanvapi petitioner seeks euthanasia from President, sets deadline for June 9”,
India Today, 8th June 2023, available at : [Link]
rakhi-singh-seeks-euthanasia-president-deadline-for-june-9-2390371-2023-06-08
(last visited on 8th Aug 20230
2
Harris NM, “The euthanasia debate” 147 (3) Journal of the Royal Army Med Corps 367-70 (2001)
3
House of Lords, Report of the Select Committee on Medical Ethics, 1994, available at:
[Link] (last
visited on 9th Aug 2023)
4
Constitution of India 1950, art 21
5
(2011) 4 SCC 454
6
(2018) 5 SCC 1
"living wills." Such directives allow individuals to express their wishes regarding medical
treatment, including the refusal of life-prolonging measures.
However, despite these pivotal judgments, the legal status of ‘active euthanasia’ in India
remains uncertain. The lack of specific legislation addressing this issue has created a void,
leading to inconsistent application and interpretation of existing laws. This legal ambiguity
has left both medical practitioners and patients in a state of uncertainty, navigating complex
ethical and legal dilemmas when faced with end-of-life decisions. Hence, this paper begins
with understanding concept of ‘euthanasia’ and its classification and subsequently
international legal regime of euthanasia. Following this, position of euthanasia in India and
judicial development and lastly, paper concludes with different arguments against euthanasia
in India.
II. MEANING AND CLASSIFICATION OF EUTHANASIA
The term ‘euthanasia’ means good death. It involves administration of a lethal substance to a
patient in order to relieve the patient’s intolerable and incurable pain and suffering.
According to Oxford dictionary ‘euthanasia’ means “the painless killing of a patient
suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma”. According to The
Black’s Law dictionary (8th edition), ‘euthanasia’, “as an act or practice of killing or bringing
about the death of a person who suffers from an incurable disease or condition especially a
painful one, for reasons of mercy.” Thus euthanasia involves a deliberate action to end or to
assist in ending the life of a person on compensate grounds.
‘Euthanasia’ can be classified into different forms. According to ‘Senate Selection of Bills
Committee’ recommended euthanasia can be divided into four categories. These are 7:
1. Active Euthanasia: Active euthanasia involves taking specific actions to end a
person's life, such as administering lethal drugs. It is an intentional and direct act of
causing death to alleviate suffering in patients with terminal illnesses.
2. Passive Euthanasia: Passive euthanasia, on the other hand, refers to withholding or
withdrawing life-sustaining treatment or medical interventions, thereby allowing the
natural process of death to occur. In this form of euthanasia, no direct action is taken
to hasten death.
3. Non-Voluntary Euthanasia: Non-voluntary euthanasia occurs when a person's life is
intentionally ended without their explicit consent. This may happen when the
individual is incapable of expressing their wishes or has not communicated their
preferences regarding end-of-life decisions.
4. Involuntary Euthanasia: Involuntary euthanasia involves intentionally ending a
person's life against their will or consent. This form of euthanasia is considered
7
Australian Parliament report on Euthanasia, available at:
[Link]
[Link] (last visited on 30th July)
unethical and illegal in most jurisdictions, as it disregards the individual's right to
autonomy and self-determination.
There are other types of euthanasia are as follows8:
5. Assisted Suicide: Assisted suicide, sometimes referred to as physician-assisted dying,
is a related concept to euthanasia. It involves providing assistance to a person who
wishes to end their life by self-administering a lethal dose of medication. Unlike
euthanasia, the person takes the final action in assisted suicide.
6. Physician-Assisted Euthanasia: This refers to a situation where a medical professional
administers a lethal substance to a patient, upon the patient's request, to bring about a
peaceful death.
The supreme court of India in Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India9
mentioned two types of euthanasia as ‘active euthanasia’ and ‘passive euthanasia’.
Active euthanasia is intentional death by active intervention and passive euthanasia is
withdrawing life support or taking life through indirect means. The court held that
active euthanasia is not permissible and passive euthanasia can be granted in rare
cases without legislation.
III. INTERNATIONAL LEGAL REGIME OF EUTHANASIA
Euthanasia is primarily governed by national laws and regulations, and each country or
jurisdiction decides its own standing on the practice based on its cultural, ethical, religious,
and legal considerations. Due to the sensitive and complex nature of euthanasia, there is
significant variation in laws and regulations across different countries. Some countries have
legalized euthanasia or assisted suicide under specific circumstances, while others have
completely banned the practice. In some nations, euthanasia may be decriminalized or
tolerated in certain situations, but there may not be specific legislation addressing the issue.
For example, the Netherlands was the first European country to decriminalize euthanasia and
assisted suicide by a law passed in 2001 10, Belgium was the second country which legalised
the euthanasia two decades ago11, Luxembourg in 2008 adopted the law which deals with
8
Centre for Health Ethics, University of Missouri, “Euthanasia” available at :
[Link] (last visited on 9th Aug 2023)
9
Supra note at 4
10
Alliance vita, “Euthanasia in Netherland” available at: [Link]
the-netherlands/ (last visited on 30th July 2023)
11
Anca Ulea, “'Right to die': Belgium marks two decades since it legalised euthanasia” ,euronews, available at:
[Link]
(last visited on 30th July 2023)
right with dignity12, Colombia court legalised euthanasia13, and Canada14, euthanasia and/or
physician-assisted suicide are legal under specific conditions, such as terminal illness and
unbearable suffering, and with appropriate medical and legal safeguards. In Switzerland
permits assisted suicide under certain circumstances, while active euthanasia remains illegal.
In the United States, the laws governing euthanasia and assisted suicide vary by state, with a
few states permitting it under specific conditions or through court decisions. Many other
countries, including India, have grappled with the legal and ethical complexities of
euthanasia, leading to discussions, debates, and court rulings on the subject.
As of now, the regulation of euthanasia remains largely within the purview of individual
countries or regions. The absence of a standardized international regime results from the
differing cultural values, societal norms, and beliefs regarding end-of-life care and medical
decision-making across the world.
It is worth noting that international human rights instruments, such as the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), recognize the right to life and the right to health,
which have implications for the debates on euthanasia. However, these instruments do not
specifically address euthanasia, leaving it up to individual nations to determine their own
approach to this complex and sensitive issue. These international legal instruments are :
1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): The UDHR, adopted by the United
Nations General Assembly in 1948, recognizes the right to life in Article 3 15. While
the right to life is considered a fundamental human right, there have been discussions
about whether it includes the right to choose the time and manner of one's death,
especially in the context of euthanasia or assisted suicide.
2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): The ICCPR, adopted
by the United Nations in 1966, upholds the right to life in Article 6 16 which says
Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. However, the ICCPR does not
explicitly address euthanasia, leaving it up to individual countries to interpret and
apply the right to life in the context of end-of-life decisions.
3. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): The ECHR, adopted by the Council
of Europe in 1950, includes protections for the right to life 17. The European Court of
Human Rights has dealt with cases related to euthanasia and assisted suicide, applying
12
Library of Congress, USA, available at:
[Link] visited
on 30th July 2023)
13
Serge F. Kovalski, “Colombia debates court ruling that legalise mercy killing” Highbeam, availabl e
at :[Link] (last visited
on 30th July 2023)
14
Medical assistance in dying: overview, Govt. of Canada, available at:[Link]
canada/services/health-services-benefits/[Link] (last visited on 30 th July 2023)
15
Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, at art. 3
16
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), at art. 6
17
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), at art. 2
a nuanced approach that takes into account member states' different legal and cultural
contexts.
4. Additional Regional Human Rights Instruments: Various regional human rights
instruments, such as the American Convention on Human Rights and the African
Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, also include provisions on the right to life.
Similar to the global instruments, these regional agreements do not specifically
address euthanasia but may be relevant in interpreting the right to life.
IV. POSITION OF EUTHANASIA AND JUDICIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN
INDIA
In the realm of human rights, one stands supreme - the right to life, a fundamental pillar of
existence that finds its sanctuary in the Constitution of India under the hallowed Article 21 18.
Life, the very essence of our being, would be rendered meaningless if this cherished right
were to be curtailed. It serves as a shield, safeguarding every individual from the clutches of
harm, be it at the hands of another person or even the mighty government. Indeed, all other
rights find their sustenance within the embrace of the right to life. From the very moment of
birth until the final breath, this right unfalteringly accompanies each soul on its earthly
sojourn, weaving an intricate tapestry of existence.
Within this tapestry lies a profound inquiry - does the right to live with dignity encompass the
right to die with dignity? This question has came before the courts of India, drawing forth
diverse perspectives that have traversed the realms of judicial contemplation. Sections 309 19
and 30620 of the Indian Penal Code emerged as central players in this unfolding drama,
bearing penal provisions for attempted suicide and abetment to suicide, respectively.
In the case of Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra21, the petitioner's life had been
marred by multiple brain injuries stemming from an unfortunate accident, eventually leading
to mental imbalance and a diagnosis of schizophrenia. A desperate act of attempted suicide
further complicated matters, inviting the ire of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. The
Bombay High Court, in a moment of judicial reflection, illuminated the dual nature of every
right - its positive and negative aspects. Within the vast embrace of Article 21, the Court
discerned that the right to life inherently carries within it the right to die. Section 309 of the
IPC, it boldly declared, the mark of unconstitutionality, having transgressed the sacred realms
of Article 14 and 21. The Court eloquently contended that the desire to relinquish one's life,
though unusual, could not be branded as unconstitutional and illegal; rather, it stood as a
peculiar and infrequent aspect of the right to life.
However, a different tune resonated in the halls of justice in the case of Chenna
Jagadeeshwar & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh22, where a divergent perspective unfolded.
Here, it was opined that the hallowed Article 21 did not embrace the right to die within its
18
The constitution of India 1950, art. 21
19
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act no 45 of 1860), S. 309
20
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act no 45 of 1860) ,S.306
21
Cr LJ 743 (1987)
22
Cr LJ 549 (1988)
protective embrace. The saga continued in the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India 23, where
the Supreme Court echoed the sentiments of the Maruti Shripati Dubal case24, once again
affirming that the right to life encompassed the right to die and it was held that section 309 of
Indian Penal code is unconstitutional and ultra vires.
Venturing into the realm of legal chronicles, Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab25 emerges like a
captivating tale, where the very constitutionality of Section 309 of the IPC is thrust under the
spotlight. Amidst this riveting drama, Gian Kaur and her husband found themselves ensnared
in the clutches of Section 306 of the IPC, accused of abetting the tragic suicide of their
daughter-in-law, Kulwant Kaur. In a daring defense, the appellants contended that the very
validity of Section 309 stood shrouded in uncertainty, thereby viewing the charge of abetment
as merely assisting in the exercise of the fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution. They further asserted that the punishment prescribed under Section 306 clashed
with the sanctity of Article 21.
But as the story unfolded, the Supreme Court stood firm, holding aloft the banner of
constitutional validity for Section 309 of the IPC. In resolute tones, it declared the right to die
as unequivocally unconstitutional, decreeing that anything leading to the termination of life
was fundamentally at odds with the sacrosanct right to life. Amidst this labyrinth of legal
contemplation, the Court artfully delineated the fine line between the natural and unnatural
extinction of life. With unmistakable clarity, it emphasized that the right to die with dignity,
at the natural end of life's tapestry, must never be confused with the right to die an unnatural
death that snatches away life's natural course. Simply put, the notion of death with dignity in
any form did not imply the unnatural eradication of life, a demise that prematurely curtailed
the span of one's existence.
Within the hallowed halls of justice, Naresh Marotrao Sakhre v. Union of India26 graced the
stage, where Justice Lodha wielded the gavel to brand euthanasia as an act of homicide,
regardless of the circumstances that enveloped it. These cases stand as vivid testaments to the
intricate battle between life, death, and the constitutional fabric that weaves them together.
The courtroom canvas continues to evolve, as each ruling and pronouncement pens a new
chapter in the evolving saga of human dignity and the sanctity of life. The legal tales of Gian
Kaur and Naresh Marotrao Sakhre resonate with the echoes of profound jurisprudential
wisdom, leaving us to ponder the delicate interplay of life's fragility and the enduring quest
for justice.
The debate of euthanasia came in the limelight again in the case of Aruna Ramachandra
Shanbaug v. Union of India27 that dealt with euthanasia and the right to die with dignity.
Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Mumbai, had been in a
persistent vegetative state (PVS) for several decades after a brutal sexual assault in 1973. In
2009, a petition was filed seeking permission to withdraw life support and allow her a
23
(1994) 3 SCC 394
24
Supra note at. 22
25
(1996) 2 SCC 648.
26
Cri 1995 L J 96
27
(2011) 4 SCC 454
peaceful passing. The Supreme Court, while denying the plea for euthanasia, ruled that
passive euthanasia could be allowed in specific circumstances. It provided strict guidelines
and empowered High Courts to authorize the withdrawal of life support for individuals in a
permanent vegetative state after due medical examination and consultation. The case's
significance lies in the legalization of passive euthanasia in India and the ensuing discussions
on ethical, legal, and humanitarian aspects of end-of-life decisions. Aruna Shanbaug passed
away on May 18, 2015, leaving a lasting impact on the nation's understanding of the right to
die with dignity. The guidelines formulated by the Apex Court are follows:
o Life support discontinuation decision lies with parents, spouse, or close relatives; in
their absence, the next friend or treating doctor takes charge.
o The decision must be genuinely in the patient's best interest, without any malicious
intent.
o High Court's prior permission required for euthanasia, utilizing its power under
Article 226 to issue orders and directions.
o An independent panel of 3 doctors, including a neurologist, physician, and
psychiatrist, should offer opinions after receiving the application.
o Views of near relatives and next of kin must be considered; a notice is issued to seek
their input.
o High Court must provide a reasoned order, either permitting or disallowing the
application, in the case of euthanasia.
Recently, in the landmark case of Common Cause v. Union of India28, the Supreme Court of
India delivered a historic judgment that decriminalized passive euthanasia and recognized the
right of individuals to die with dignity. The case centered on the legality of living wills and
advance medical directives. The Court held that the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution encompasses the right to die with dignity, allowing individuals to execute
"advance medical directives" or "living wills" to express their preferences for medical
treatment in terminal or irreversible conditions. The Court established a robust framework for
implementing these directives, ensuring that the autonomy and dignity of terminally ill
patients are respected even when they are unable to communicate their wishes. This ruling
marked a significant milestone in India's jurisprudence on end-of-life decisions, empowering
individuals to make informed choices about their medical treatment and ensuring a more
compassionate approach to healthcare decisions in such critical situations.
V. ARGUMENTS AGAINST EUTHANASIA
Opponents of allowing euthanasia present a range of arguments from religious, ethical, and
other perspectives, expressing concerns about the sanctity of life, the potential for abuse, and
the impact on societal moral values.
Religious Perspective29: Many religious beliefs including Islam, Hinduism etc. consider life
to be sacred and a gift from a higher power. From this perspective, intentionally hastening
28
AIR 2018 SC 1665
29
Shikha Mishra, “euthanasia and its desirability in India” vol.3 ,issue II, ILI Law Review, 2020
death through euthanasia is seen as interfering with divine will and violating the religious
principle of respecting the sanctity of life. Religious groups often advocate for preserving life
until its natural end, as it is perceived as part of a larger spiritual journey.
Ethical Perspective30: Ethical concerns against euthanasia revolve around issues of autonomy,
consent, and the potential for abuse. Critics argue that allowing euthanasia could lead to a
slippery slope, where the criteria for eligibility might broaden over time, risking involuntary
or non-voluntary euthanasia. This could particularly affect vulnerable populations, such as
the elderly, disabled, or mentally ill, who may face coercion or lack the capacity to give
informed consent.
Medical Professional Integrity31: Critics highlight the core principles of medical ethics, which
emphasize the preservation of life and patient care. Legalizing euthanasia could create
conflicts for healthcare professionals who may feel torn between their duty to relieve
suffering and the ethical imperative to protect life.
Social Impact: Opponents worry that allowing euthanasia might change societal attitudes
toward life and death, potentially leading to a devaluation of human life. They argue that
society should focus on improving palliative care and mental health support, rather than
resorting to euthanasia as a solution to suffering.
In conclusion, arguments against allowing euthanasia from religious, ethical, and other
perspectives stress the value of life, concerns about abuse, and potential societal
consequences. The debate remains complex, with proponents of euthanasia advocating for
individual autonomy and compassionate end-of-life choices, while opponents emphasize the
preservation of life and the ethical responsibilities of society and medical professionals.
VI. CONCLUSION
Euthanasia remains a deeply contentious and multifaceted issue in India, encompassing
intricate debates on the right to life, individual autonomy, and the sanctity of human
existence. While the Constitution of India upholds the fundamental right to life and personal
liberty under Article 21, the interpretation of whether this right includes the right to die with
dignity has led to divergent judicial trends and significant legal milestones.
India's judicial landscape on euthanasia witnessed a defining moment with the Aruna
Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India32 case, which acknowledged the need to address
end-of-life decisions. The Supreme Court's recognition of passive euthanasia under strict
guidelines and the empowerment of High Courts to authorize life support withdrawal marked
a step forward in respecting individual autonomy and dignity. Subsequently, the Common
Cause v. Union of India33 judgment further reinforced the right to die with dignity through the
30
Das, Sayan, Legalising Passive Euthanasia in India: Ethical & Legal Challenges after Common Cause
Judgement (December 06, 2019). Available at : [Link]
31
Ibid.
32
Supra note at 27
33
Supra note at 28
recognition of advance medical directives, safeguarding the autonomy of terminally ill
patients even in incapacitated states.
However, the lack of specific legislation governing active euthanasia has created a legal
vacuum, leading to inconsistent application and interpretation of existing laws. The debate on
active euthanasia's legality continues, with varying religious, ethical, and societal
perspectives shaping the discourse.
As India grapples with the complexities of euthanasia, striking a balance between respecting
individual autonomy and safeguarding against potential abuse remains an arduous task for
policymakers, legal experts, and healthcare professionals. The judicial trends reflect a
nuanced approach, striving to uphold the right to life with dignity while acknowledging the
need for comprehensive legal guidelines for euthanasia practices.
The journey of euthanasia in India is a testament to the evolving nature of jurisprudence and
societal values, where the quest for a compassionate and dignified approach to end-of-life
decisions stands as a continual endeavor. As the nation navigates this ethical and legal terrain,
the need for sensitive and empathetic legislation becomes more pronounced, ensuring that the
right to die with dignity is upheld while safeguarding against potential pitfalls and preserving
the sanctity of human life. Ultimately, India's position on euthanasia will continue to evolve
in response to the dynamic interplay of legal, moral, and humanitarian considerations,
seeking to strike a harmonious chord between individual choice and societal interests.
