🐽India has witnessed several legal battles over the years that have stirred the Euthanasia debate
🐼An 85-year-old retired government school teacher, HB Karibasamma, is likely to make history as Karnataka’s first beneficiary of the ‘right to die with dignity’ policy. After decades of advocacy, her wish is being fulfilled following a state government circular issued on January 30. It will allow terminally ill patients to legally end their suffering. Karnataka is the second State after Kerala to implement the directive.
♒The idea of helping a critically ill person die according to their will is one of the most debated topics in modern healthcare. On one hand, it is about ending the suffering of a patient with no chance of recovery. On the other, it raises the question: does a person have the right to end their own life? This is where euthanasia comes in. The term, derived from Greek, means ‘a good death’ and refers to deliberately ending someone’s life to relieve suffering. Doctors sometimes perform euthanasia at the request of terminally ill patients in extreme pain.
In India, the legal position on euthanasia has been shaped by a series of court rulings, most notably Aruna Shanbaug vs Union of India in 2011 and Common Cause vs Union of India💛 in 2018. These cases made a clear distinction between active and passive euthanasia. While passive euthanasia is allowed under certain conditions, active euthanasia remains illegal in India. Here are some of the cases that have set a precedent on this issue:
In P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court 𒀰struck down Section 309 of the IPC, which criminalised attempted suicide. The petitioners argued that the Right to Life under Article 21 also includes the Right to Die. The Court agreed, reasoning that just as freedom of speech includes the right to remain silent, the right to live should include the right not to live. It ruled that punishing suicide attempts was an unfair restriction on personal freedom.
🐎In the Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996) case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Right to Life under Article 21 does not include the Right to Die, overturning a previous judgment that had decriminalised attempted suicide.
🔯The case involved Gian Kaur and her husband, Harbans Singh, who were convicted for abetting the suicide of their daughter-in-law, Kulwant Kaur, under Section 306 IPC. They challenged their conviction, arguing that if the Right to Life includes the Right to Die, assisting suicide should not be a crime. The Court rejected this argument, emphasising that taking life—one’s own or another’s—violates natural and moral principles.
Aruna Shanbaug was a nurse at Mumbai’s KEM Hospital who was brutally attacked and raped by a hospital worker in 1973, leaving her with severe brain damage and in a permanent vegetative state for 42 years. She was completely dependent on hospital staff for care, surviving on mashed food ᩚᩚᩚᩚᩚᩚᩚᩚᩚ𒀱ᩚᩚᩚfed through a tube. In 2009, journalist Pinki Virani filed a petition seeking euthanasia for Aruna, arguing for the right to die with dignity. The Supreme Court rejected the plea in 2011. Aruna passed away in 2015 due to pneumonia, but her case remains central to India’s euthanasia debate.
ꦺIn 2018 the Supreme Court recognised the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right and prescribed guidelines for terminally ill patients to enforce the right. In 2023 the Supreme Court modified the guidelines to make the right to die with dignity more accessible.
🉐In 2005, the organisation Common Cause filed a petition in the Supreme Court, arguing that the right to die with dignity should be recognised as a fundamental right under Article 21. It sought legal approval for terminally ill patients to make ‘living wills’—documents stating their wish to refuse life support if they become critically ill. The case was referred to a larger bench in 2014 due to conflicting rulings in past cases. In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right and allowed individuals to make advance medical directives.
In 2004, a woman had moved the Andhra Pradesh High Court 🎐seeking mercy killing for her son K. Venkatesh, who had debilitating muscular dystrophy, so that his wish of donating his vital organs could be fulfilled.
ꦦThe court rejected her petition on the ground that the present laws did not permit euthanasia and human organs could be harvested only from a brain dead patient.
꧟In 2024, the parents of 30-year-old Harish Rana, who has been in a vegetative state for over 13 years, petitioned for passive euthanasia, citing financial and emotional distress. In July, the Delhi High Court rejected their plea, ruling that since Rana was not on life support and could survive without external aid, euthanasia could not be considered. In November, former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud intervened on his last working day, directing the Uttar Pradesh government to find ways to support Rana’s medical expenses.