Laws - Article 21 of Constitution
Bench Strength - 5
Case Type - Civil Writ Petition
Case Citation - (2018) 5 SCC 1, AIR 2018 SC 1665
Case Summary
A registered society called Common Cause filed this petition to have Article 21 of the Constitution interpreted to include the right to die with dignity as part of the right to live with dignity. It also asked for instructions to the State to implement the necessary measures so that people with terminal illnesses or declining health could execute living wills or advance medical directives.
After giving careful consideration to both domestic and international precedence, including the ruling in K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. ((2017) 10 SCC 1), the Court concluded that guaranteed right to die with dignity was a fundamental right under Article 21. The Court upheld the use of Advance Medical Directives as well, pointing out that it was possible to preserve human autonomy and ensure dignity at death by using this method. The Court discussed a lot of detail about the development of the right to privacy, emphasizing that liberty cannot be realized without privacy, which is crucial to human dignity.
It was also believed that the right to privacy was essential to maintaining one's physical integrity, autonomy, and freedom of choice—all of which would be protected as fundamental rights. The US decision in In Re Quinlan, which suggested that as bodily integrity was increasingly infringed and chances of recovery decreased, the right to privacy increased and state interest diminished, was taken into consideration by the Court in weighing State interest and individual privacy.
Not only does it violate the principle of informed consent, but it also violates the patient's right to bodily integrity and privacy, which this Court has recognized as aspects of privacy.
Facts
This writ petition aimed to guarantee that people with declining health or terminal illnesses can be execute an Advance Medical Directive or a living will, and to declare that the "right to die with dignity" comes under the preview of the "right to live with dignity" under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The case initially came before a three-judge bench, but it was referred to a Constitution Bench because of conflicting precedents about the legality of the right to die in India. The problem originated with the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India ((1994) 3 SCC 394), wherein a Supreme Court Division Bench ruled that Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which made suicide attempts illegal, violated the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and hence unconstitutional. According to the Court's decision the right to life included the right to die.
In the Gian Kaur v. The State of Punjab (1996 AIR 946) case, a five-judge Supreme Court bench overruled this judgement, ruling that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution does not include the right to die. However, the Court permitted passive euthanasia in certain extreme circumstances in the Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India and Ors case ((2011) 4 SCC 454), under to the stringent guidelines laid down by the Court.
Issue
Whether the right to die with dignity was a fundamental right?
Is it fall under the fold of the right to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution?
Petitioner Arguments
The petitioner claimed that the idea to preserve one's own autonomy was integral to both the right to privacy and the idea of liberty. It was argued that using cutting-edge medical techniques to keep a patient in a chronic vegetative state allowed for interference with the patient's autonomy and dignity as well as increased pain and suffering.
The petitioner further asserted a connection between the rights to live and die with dignity. It further argued that a person could not be forced to accept medical treatment against their will and that the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment was protected by common law.
Respondent Arguments
In their counter-affidavit, the Respondent (state) declared that although state had investigated the possibility of regulating euthanasia, but the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare was not in its best interests to do so. The respondent argued that the right to a dignified death was not included in the right to live with dignity as protected by Article 21, which instead focused on the availability of food, shelter, and health care.
The "Society for the Right to Die with Dignity" was granted permission to file an intervention application. The affidavit highlighted the right to a peaceful death and the option to choose not to live in an irreversible state, while also supporting the idea of euthanasia. Additionally, it submitted a sample "living wil".
Decision
The Court reaffirmed that, as decided by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the Gian Kaur case, the right to die with dignity constituted a fundamental right. The Court further explained that the idea of passive euthanasia was not introduced by the Gian Kaur ruling.
The Court talked about the differences between active and passive euthanasia, stating that the first calls for an overt act whereas the second is simply the act of turning off life support. It was held that the Aruna Shanbaug Bench erred in ruling that legislation was the only way to legalize passive euthanasia.
Regarding living wills, the Court determined that there was enough proof of the acceptance of the idea of advance medical directives in this country. It further stated that the ability to execute an Advance Medical Directive was a step in the right direction toward protecting the autonomy and integrity of one's body. A guardian could make this decision on behalf of a patient in the case where the patient was unable to make an informed decision by applying the "best-interest" perspective.
The case included an extensive discussion of the relationship between autonomy and liberty and the right to privacy, as explained in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017 (10) SCC 1). In this case, the Court cited passages from each of the six judgements. Apart from considering cases from India, the Court also looked at judgments from other countries and talked about how the right to privacy related to euthanasia.
0 Comments