Compendious Analysis Of Right To Die With Reference To Gian Kaur Vs. State Of Punjab Shyamli Shukla LANDMARK JUDGMENT Tue, Aug 18, 2020, at ,08:04 PM Introduction In an organized society, the right to live is not ensured by fulfilling the animal needs of human but by providing facilities that assure the overall development of the race and provides him security in the society. The Fundamental Rights have been enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution which guarantees the elementary rights to the citizens which are of utmost importance. One of such rights is Article 21 which provides the Right to Life and Personal Liberty, which states that: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.” The phraseology of the Article is couched on negative terms and directs the State to not deprive any person, citizen or non- citizen, of his life and personal liberty except by the procedure established by law. The procedure that prevents a person from exercising his right to life or liberty shall be valid only through the operation of law that is enacted by a competent legislature. the concept is framed in such manner so as to prevent any misuse of the provisions and to assure security to the people. According to Hon’ble Justice Bhagwati, Article 21 “embodies a constitutional value of supreme importance in a democratic society.” Right to life is the most fundamental of all rights as other rights add quality to life and are dependent on the pre-existence of life for their operation. Article 21 is the most broadly and frequently interpreted provision of the Constitution. Its ambit includes various other rights that were incorporated by way of judicial interpretation, like, Right to Livelihood, Right to Education, Right to Privacy, Right to Information, etc. Another Right that was questioned to be a part of Article 21 is the Right to Die. The concept is also called Euthanasia or mercy killing or in simple words ending someone’s life because he lacks the will to live. This idea traces its path to Socrates, Plat and the Stoics. Euthanasia refers to the deliberately ending someone’s life, mostly done to relieve the person from his sufferings. This question of whether Right to Die is inclusive of Article 21 was not brought to the Supreme Court directly. It was first referred while the Supreme Court was dealing with a proposition that whether the right to die is a part and parcel of Article 21 since every person has the right to make any decision for his/her life. The Court had undergone a lot of cases and has shown its activism in the process of interpretation of Article 21. By successfully expanding the scope of Article 21 and including the Right to Live with Dignity way of the landmark case of Maenika Gandhi, the Court was contemplating on the argument that does right to live with dignity, not include the right to end it in circumstances of terminal illness or prolonged or incurable disease. The first case on this issue was P. Rathinam vs. Union of India[3], where the petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which criminalizes the attempt to suicide, on the ground that it is violative of Article 14 and Article 21. The Supreme Court in this case partially overruled the Bombay High Court’s judgment in the case of Maruti Shripati Dubal[4], in which the Bombay High Court struck down Section 309 by ruling that this provision is violative of Article 14 and 21. In the case of P. Rathinam, the Supreme Court held that the provision of IPC, Section 309, was not violative of Article 14 but it does violate Article 21.[5] Although this decision did not last long and a Constitutional bench constituting five judges overruled the precedent set by P. Rathinam, in the following case of Gian Kaur[6]. The details of the case shall be discussed as it is one of the landmark judgments on the concept Euthanasia. Case Analysis of Gian Kaur vs. the State of Punjab- CASE NAME- Gian Kaur Vs. State Of Punjab CITATION - 1996 AIR 946, 1996 SCC (2) 648. BENCH - Justice J.S. Verma; G.N. Ray; N.P. Singh; Faizan Uddin and G.T. Nanavati. DECIDED ON- 21st March 1996. Fact Brief- The Special Leave Petition granted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in the case of Gian Kaur[7], the appeal was brought to the Supreme Court whereby the appellants Gian Kaur and her husband Harbans Singh were convicted under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and each sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) for six years, by the Trial Court. A fine of Rs. 2,000 was also imposed, the default of which would amount to a further R.I. for nine months, for the abetment of the commission of suicide by Kulwant Kaur, daughter-in-law of the said convicts. On appeal to the High Court, the Court reduced the sentenced of Gian Kaur alone, to three years R.I. and maintained the whole sentence as it is. This appeal by Special Leave is against the conviction and sentence under Section 206, IPC. Issues Raised- This case raised two major issues which, post interpretation lead to a landmark judgment. The Supreme Court has critically analyzed the facts and circumstances around these two issues: Whether Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is constitutionally valid or not, in the light of the present case? Whether Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India? Contentions of Prosecution- The prosecution challenged the constitutional validity of Section 306, IPC on the basis of the landmark case of P. Rathinam vs. Union of India[8], given by two judges bench of this Court whereby, Section 309 was held unconstitutional for being violative of Article 21of the Constitution. It was argued that ‘right to die’ be included in Article 21, as held by the aforesaid case, declaring Section 309 as unconstitutional and hence any person abetting the commission of suicide is mere assisting in the enforcement of the fundamental right under Article 21. Therefore, the provision of Section 306 which penalizes the assisted suicide is equally violative of the fundamental rights. Hence, it is urged by the prosecution that this argument is alone sufficient to hold Section 306 unconstitutional. Contentions of Respondent- The State being the respondents wanted the decision of the Trial Court and High Court to be upheld by the Supreme Court. The Counsel on behalf of the Respondents contended strongly that Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which provides the abetment of the attempt of suicide is an independent provision, and hence, cannot be relied on to be a part of Section of 309 of the same Act. Additionally, Section 306 has a constitutionally valid position and do not violate Article 21. The Respondents also have urged the striking down of the ruling in the case of P. Rathinam vs. Union of India[9] as Section 309 of the IPC is constitutionally valid. It is contended that ‘right to die’ is inherently inconsistent with the ‘right to life’ and do not fall within the ambit of Article 21. Hence, respondents contended that there is no merit in the contentions of the prosecution based on Article 14 of the Constitution and prayed the upholding of the judgment of the Trial Court and the High Court. Judgment- This case reached a unanimous judgment by a five judges constitutional bench that ‘Right to Life’ under Article 21 of Indian Constitution does not include ‘Right to Die’ or ‘right to be killed’, the Supreme Court asserts that “Right to life” also includes right to have a dignified life till the point of death and a dignified procedure to die and thus has the right to have a die with dignity even when his life is ebbing out. The Apex Court clearly pointed out that the ‘Right to die’ with dignity shall not be misunderstood as a ‘right to die’ in unnatural form of death. It was asserted that triggering or speeding the process of the natural death of an individual is eminent in nature, and in such circumstances giving due permission for terminating the life of such individual is not an appropriate interpretation of Article 21, to therein curtail the natural span of life of an individual. Henceforth, the contentions of the Counsel on behalf of the Appellants to make Section 309 unconstitutional cannot be accepted on the ground that it violates Article 21. The Court also rejected the petitioner’s argument that the validity of Section 309 can be challenged on the ground of violation to Article 14. While dealing with the second issue that whether Section 36 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is constitutional or not was answered by the Hon’ble Court by affirming that the assisted attempt to suicide and assisted suicide are made punishable for the reasons specified and considerate for the society. The objective is to prevent the inherent danger that can follow in the absence of such provision. Abetment of suicide is a different offence which is enacted in many countries where attempted suicide is not punishable. Hence Section 306 is enacted as a distinct and independent offence from Section 309 of the IPC. The Court in response to the argument in support of the plea to not punish the person involved in the attempt to commit suicide does not avail the advantage of another person who assists in such commission or its attempt. Thus, the Court struck down the ruling of P. Rathinam vs Union of India[10], by making Section 306 & 309 constitutionally valid. The Court held that the accused has been rightly sentenced and upheld the judgment of the High Court, for the offence of abetment of suicide. The rationale behind the Judgment- The petitioners contended that on grounds of certain judgments that have widened the scope of Article 21, the term ‘life’ does not mean mere ‘animal existence’ but to have a life with human dignity and a certain standard and quality of living. Hence, it was interpreted that right to life would also correspondingly include right to not live or right to die. The ancient Hindu texts in the Manusmritis provide that the Brahmana has got rid of their body either by starving or drowning, practised by great humans or saints to leave all pain and sorrow of this world, but there is a change in times, situations, society and have occurred advancements in technology, which have lead to a better standard of living and advancement in quality of life. The provision enshrined in Article 21 ensures the right to live with dignity which strives to ensure even death with dignity. The Court observed that: “‘Right to life’ is a natural right embodied in Article 21 but suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and, therefore, incompatible and inconsistent with … right to life. When a man commits suicide he has to undertake certain positive overt acts and the genesis of those acts cannot be traced to, or included within … right to life.” The Court also demarcated the difference between euthanasia and suicide and recognize the right to die with dignity by stating: “Protagonism of euthanasia on the view that existence in a persistent vegetative state is not a benefit to the patient of terminal illness being unrelated to the principle of sanctity of life or the right to live with dignity is of no assistance to determine the scope of Article 21 for deciding whether the guarantee of ‘right to life’ therein includes the ‘right to die’. The ‘right to life’ including the right to live with human dignity would mean the existence of such a right up to the end of natural life … including the right to a dignified life up to the point of death, [and] including a dignified procedure of death.” Henceforth, the Court intended to ensure that no person shall end his life as their right to die and thus, this case happens to be landmark Judgment for ‘Right to Die’ being constitutionally invalid. Ratio Decidendi- The Court held that the attempt to commit suicide and the commission to abet the attempt to suicide does not violate Article 14. The Court overruled the case of P. Rathinam vs. Union of India and held Section 306 &309 constitutionally valid. Recent Trends post-Gian Kaur Case- After analysis the findings and principle involved in the case of Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab[11] it has been stated that ‘right to die’ has not been adopted by the Indian Justice System. The line of cases that were a landmark in this context and followed was Aruna Shanbaug vs. Union of India[12], where the petitioner was in a permanent vegetative state (PVC) for a period of 37 years. The two judges bench allowed passive euthanasia subject to conditions and was subject to approval from the High Court which laid down a certain procedure of law in that particular case. It was so done as passive euthanasia is also divided into two categories, voluntary and non- voluntary passive euthanasia. In the case of non-voluntary passive euthanasia, the consent is unavailable as was the case here, she was brain dead and could not understand anything. It was a special type of coma. The court said that active euthanasia cannot be permitted as it is ending someone’s life by doing certain activities while passive euthanasia is not doing something to preserve the life of the patient. In Aruna’s case, the Court said about passive euthanasia that, “the doctors are not actively killing anyone; they are simply not saving him; while we usually applaud someone who saves another person‟s life, we do not normally condemn someone for failing to do so and you cannot prosecute someone for failing to save a life.”[13] The most recent and landmark case that overruled the case of P. Rathinam vs. Union of India and Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab and followed the principle of Aruna Shanbaug vs. Union of India was the case of Common Cause vs. Union of India[14]. In this case the Apex Court, on 9th March 2018, by the unanimous decision of five judges bench, held that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right and it’s the right of an individual to exercise advance medical directives and not be dependent on any recognition or legislation by the State. Hence, this paper can be concluded by observing the drastic changes that we have observed in the interpretation of the law, particularly Article 21 since that is the only law which has the widest ambit and ensures safety in all dimensions. There will be more interpretations and enactment on new laws since ‘Right to Die’ ye needs more procedural changes and requires strict guidelines to be followed to prevent its misuse and ensure the safety of people. [1] Munn vs. Illinos, (1877) 94 US 113. [2] Ronald Dworkin, Life’s Dominion: An Argument about Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom, (Alfred A. Knopf Publication 1993) 3. [3] 8 (1994) 3 SCC 394. [4] Maruti Shripati Dubal vs. State of Maharashtra, 1986 SCC Online Bom 278, [19]-[22]. [5] P. Rathinam vs. Union of India, 8 (1994) SCC 394, [110], and [112]. [6] Gian Kaur vs State of Pubjab, 12 (1996) 2 SCC 648. [7] Supra. [8] P. Rathinam vs. Union of India & Anr. 1994 Cri LJ 1650. [9] Supra. [10] Supra. [11] 6ibid. [12] Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 454. [13] Supra. [14] 2018 5 SCC 1: 2018 SCC OnLINE SC 208.