Introduction:
Life is a grand journey with many stages. Billions of people experience these stages differently, even under the same sky. For some, life feels vibrant and colorful, like a rainbow, while for others, it appears dull and gray, like a rainy day.
Our perception of life changes with every stage, and eventually, there comes a time when the once colorful sky fades into a dim and somber state—signaling the approach of death. Death is inevitable, the ultimate truth of life, marking its end. We often hear people say we shouldn’t fear life and should live bravely, believing that as long as we’re breathing and moving, we’re truly alive. But is that really true? What if we’re just going through the motions, mentally or emotionally drained? Breathing doesn’t always mean living—real life is about feeling, connecting, and finding meaning. Without that, are we truly alive, or just existing?
What if a person no longer wishes to live and wants to escape a vegetative state? Our Constitution guarantees fundamental rights, including the right to life under Article 21. But this right isn’t just about existing—it’s about living with dignity.
Does that not mean that when life loses all dignity and meaning, the individual should have the autonomy to make decisions about their own life, including the choice to let it end peacefully?
This question was answered in the case law
Common cause v union of india .
Society has long argued that Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to live with dignity, should also encompass the right to die with dignity. This demand was brought to the Supreme Court through a petition, leading to a landmark ruling. After carefully examining Indian and international laws, the Supreme Court, in K.S. Puttaswamy and Anr v. Union of India and Others (1994), recognized that the right to die with dignity is an integral part of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
MEANING OF EUTHANASIA:
The concept of euthanasia is derived from two Greek words: “eu,” meaning good, and “thanatos,” meaning death. It refers to the practice of allowing a person who is suffering from severe pain or is in a vegetative state to die in order to relieve them from their suffering.
There are two types of euthanasia: active and passive.
- Active euthanasia involves actively taking measures to end a person’s life, such as administering a lethal dose of drugs to cause death.
- Passive euthanasia, on the other hand, involves withholding or withdrawing life support systems, such as ventilators or oxygen masks, allowing the person to die naturally from their condition.
Euthanasia can also be categorized into voluntary and involuntary forms, based on whether the person’s consent is given.
- Voluntary euthanasia occurs when a person consciously and willingly requests to end their life to relieve suffering, often in the form of a written or verbal consent. This is considered an act of personal autonomy.
- Involuntary euthanasia, on the other hand, involves ending someone’s life without their consent. This could happen when a person is unable to communicate, for example, due to being in a coma or a vegetative state, and a decision is made by family members or medical professionals on their behalf. This type of euthanasia is controversial and is often viewed as ethically problematic.
COMMON CAUSE
V
UNION OF INDIA (2018)
Parties to the case :
PETITIONER :
- Common cause (regd society)
- Prashant Bhushan ( adv. Representing)
RESPONDENT :
- Ministry of health and family welfare
- Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, K. V.Jagadeeswaran, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha (adv. Representative)
FACTS OF THE CASE :
This case involved a writ petition concerning Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which argued that the right to live with dignity should include the right to die with dignity. It was also suggested that those who are seriously ill or in a vegetative state might be allowed to sign a living will or advance medical directive.
P. Rathinam v. Union of India is a 1994 case where the concept of dying with dignity came to the forefront. Considering the facts of the case, the division bench of the apex court stated that:
“Criminalisation of attempt to commit suicide under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 stands unconstitutional as the section is violating the provisions mentioned under Article
14 (Equality before law and equal protection of law) and Article 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India. “
Considering the facts of the case, the division bench of the apex court stated that the right to life also includes the right to die with dignity.
However, this decision was overruled in the case Gian Kaur v. The State of Punjab (1996). The five-judge bench of the Supreme Court in this case narrowed the scope of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, declaring that the right to die with dignity is not included under Article 21.
In 2011, in the case of Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India and Others, the Court allowed passive euthanasia for a rape victim who had been in a vegetative state for the past 42 years. The Court stated:
“Under certain exceptional circumstances, passive euthanasia can be allowed to put the sufferings of the patient to an end.”
Issues to be answered in the Common cause v. Union of india case :
- Are passive and active euthanasia different from each other?
- Is the right to die with dignity within the scope of Article 21’s right to live with dignity?
- Are individuals allowed to include passive euthanasia in their living will in India?
- Are there any recommendations by the Law Commission regarding the concept of euthanasia?
- Are there rights that exist to stop a person from receiving medical treatment that leads to death in the form of euthanasia?
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE PARTIES :
- Arguments presented by the Petitioner:
The petitioner argued that individual self-governance or autonomy is part of the right to privacy and is important for liberty. They claimed that using advanced medical treatments and techniques to keep someone alive in a vegetative state only causes more pain and suffering, which violates their dignity and autonomy.
The petitioner also argued that the right to live and the right to die are interconnected. Therefore, a person who is suffering should be allowed to decide whether they want to receive medical treatment to stay alive or not. Hence, they should have the right to decide whether to undergo a medical procedure or refrain from it.
- Arguments presented by the Respondents:
The respondent, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare argued against the formation of Uniform rules regarding the right to die with dignity, that each case is unique and decision should be based upon facts of each circumstance and so, uniform rules cannot be formed. Also argued that under article 21 of the Indian Constitution,the right to live with dignity only covers basic needs like food, shelter and medical treatment.
Hence, the right to die with dignity should not be included with the right to live with dignity.
COURTS JUDGEMENT :
The supreme court had already ruled in the gian kaur case that the right to die with dignity is a constitutional guaranteed right.
However the court also held that the concept of passive euthanasia is not allowed and explained the difference between active and passive euthanasia:
- Active euthanasia: Taking actions to end a person’s life.
- Passive euthanasia: Stopping life support to end a person’s life.
The court said that in the aruna shanbaug’s case the order to take passive euthanasia was allowed, which was incorrect.
Regarding the living wills, the court introduced the idea of advance medical directives in India. It said that the AMD helps protect individual autonomy.
If the individual can’t make their own decisions, a caretaker or a guardian can take decisions in their place.
The Court looked at both Indian and international cases, such as Re Quinlan (1976) and Pretty v. The United Kingdom(2002), to support its view.
In Re Quinlan, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that as a person’s condition worsens, their right to privacy becomes more important, and a guardian can make decisions on their behalf. Similarly, in Pretty v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights said a person can choose to avoid a painful death, and this decision is protected by the right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Court concluded that the right to privacy also covers decisions about death, and that these decisions are part of the fundamental rights to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Conclusion:
The rule in Common Cause v. Union of India is important as it demonstrates how courts follow the principle of proportionality under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, balancing the state’s duty to protect one’s life with the individual’s right to autonomy over health decisions. The Court recognized that in some situations, where life no longer holds meaning or prolonging it would not be in the person’s best interest, it is appropriate to allow the right to die with dignity.
FAQ’s :
Q.1 What are advance directives, and how were they addressed in this case ?
Ans. AMD are written instructions for a medical treatment if the person is unable to communicate. Court recognised them as valid.
Q.2 How does Common Cause v. Union of India relates to international jurisprudence?The Court referred to international legal principles on the right to die with dignity, drawing from cases in countries like the UK and the US.
Author-ARCHITA SHARMA, a student of GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, MUMBAI
