This article has been written by Aditi Ananya from Chanakya National Law University

INTRODUCTION

The idea of life and death continues to be central to the universe. Every human being wants to die in peace and live with dignity. Even though death is unavoidable, the question of artificial death is hotly debated from a moral and constitutional standpoint. Diverse philosophical traditions have differing views about the inclusion of the right to die in the right to live. It has been a hot subject not only in India but all around the world, and for good reason—given the irreversible nature of what will happen once anything has been fixed. Although the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has been accorded great importance, the judiciary makes every effort to broaden the meaning and applicability of the aforementioned clause without undermining the intention behind it.

According to Article 21, no one could be deprived of their life or personal freedom unless doing so would violate a legally defined process. The courts in our nation have repeatedly emphasised the significance of this Article and how essential it is to the continued survival of human society. A legislation that arbitrarily and unjustifiably restricts someone’s life or freedom is against public policy and a violation of their fundamental civil rights. The importance of Article 21 is such that it prohibits suspension of this Fundamental Right even in cases of national emergency. According to Bhagwati J. in Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator (1981), Article 21 is a fundamental value that is crucial to a democracy. This article’s purview is meant to include all situations in which someone is deprived of their life or their liberty without a good reason. However, what precisely is this article advocating? What is the right to life? Does the right to die fall under this as well? If so, why is it that our criminal code penalises suicide attempts? Although the right to life and the right to die are two distinct concepts, they are connected in some way. When one is allowed, the other is not.

Background of the Case

A person who attempts an act of suicide or takes any action to encourage such an attempt faces penalties under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. In essence, the law will penalise someone who attempts suicide but is unsuccessful, but it cannot punish someone who dies by suicide. As strange as it may sound, courts have found people not guilty even when they attempted to disobey the law, and the law has kept numerous accidents from happening. Nonetheless, the section has been contested in court on several occasions on the grounds that Section 309 of the IPC conflicts with Article 21 of the Constitution, which gives us the freedom to live and die as we like.

The first challenge was made in the Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra 1987 (1) Bom CR 499 case, when the section was declared unconstitutional by the court on the grounds that it violated Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court declared that there were both positive and negative components to the right to life, and that it encompassed the freedom to die if one so chooses. Then, Justice P. B. Sawant expressed his opinion, asking how it could be just to penalise people who tried to take their own lives but were unsuccessful if the provision was against those who wanted to end their lives? Suicidal individuals need mental health care, not jail time; those who want to end their life because of a medical condition, advanced age, handicap, etc., need assisted living facilities. This section is counterproductive and self-defeating, and it has no effect on someone who chooses not to live for whatever reason.

In State v. Sanjay Kumar Bhatia 1986 (10) DRJ 31, the Delhi High Court ruled that Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code should be immediately repealed because it is an “anachronism unworthy of a human society like ours.” The boy had attempted suicide by swallowing “tik-20,” a bed bug killer, but had been acquitted. Rather than transferring the youngster to a mental facility, we put him in jail cells around criminals.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court maintained the ruling in the Maruti Shripati case in P. Rathinam v. Union of India 1994 AIR 1844, holding that Section 309 of the IPC violated Article 21 of the Constitution and was, thus, null and constitutionally invalid. The Court continued by stating that no one, not even the government, can make someone appreciate their life if they do not want to. There is no need to arrest those who attempt suicide because Article 21 guarantees both the right to life and the right not to live. However, before coming to a decision, the court permitted the clause to stay in the Code after taking note of other rulings from the courts in Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Bombay, etc. Nevertheless, a number of rulings and publications on the subject surfaced, all of which denounced the clause and demanded that it be ruled illegal. However, the Supreme Court reversed its own ruling in the present case of Gian Kaur.

Facts

The trial court found Gian Kaur and her husband Harbans Kaur guilty of aiding and abetting their daughter-in-law Kulwant Kaur’s suicide because they desired for their son to wed someone else who could provide them with a dowry. They were given harsh prison term of seven years each after being found guilty of abetment to suicide under section 306 of the IPC. In addition, they would have to pay a fine of Rs. 2000 and face an additional nine months in jail if they failed to comply.

The convictions were appealed to the High Court, which maintained the trial court’s ruling. The High Court’s only modification was to lessen Gian Kaur’s sentence from seven years to three years of hard labour. Her husband’s sentence was not altered.

Ultimately, the appellants turned to the Supreme Court, where they challenged their conviction in a Special Leave Petition. They claimed that Article 21 of the Constitution was infringed by Section 306 of the IPC.

In P. Rathinam v. Union of India, a division bench of the Supreme Court ruled that Section 309 of the IPC was unconstitutional because it violated Article 21, which guarantees both the right to life and the right to end one’s own life. This decision served as the foundation for the aforementioned challenge. After the case was brought before a divisional court of the Court, which recognised the significance of the situation, it was referred to a five-judge constitutional bench.

Issues Raised

• Does the IPC’s Section 306 have constitutional validity?
• Is Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code a violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution?
• Does the Indian Constitution’s Article 21, which addresses the “Right to Life,” encompass the “Right to Die”?

Contentions of the Appellants

1. The appellants argued that their conviction was a mistaken decision. Additionally, they claimed that section 306 of the IPC did not permit aiding and abetting suicide.
2. In light of the court’s ruling in the P. Rathinam case, which concluded that section 306 violated Article 21 since it recognised the right to die as part of the right to life, the two contended that section 306 was unconstitutional. As to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, an individual who aids in the act of suicide is only contributing to the fulfilment of a fundamental right. Therefore, Section 306, which penalises aiding and abetting suicide, is in Article 21’s misdemeanour.
3. Additionally, the appellants argued that Section 309 violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. They firmly relied on the ruling in the P. Rathinam case for this. Nevertheless, one of the appellants’ two solicitors felt that section 309 only contravened article 14 and not article 21.

Contentions of the Respondent

1. The state, as the respondent, argued that the conviction should be upheld in accordance with section 306 of the IPC and that the sentences should be affirmed.
2. The state attorneys contended that sections 306 and 309 dealt with distinct offences and were not related to one another. They claimed that section 306 could function without section 309. Therefore, section 306 is not void and does not contravene articles 14 or 21.
3. One of the lawyers said that the goal of euthanasia should not be taken into consideration when determining whether or not section 309 of the IPC should be deleted because “the desirability of deleting section 309 from the IPC can’t be ground to carry it constitutionally invalid.”
4. The attorney said that as article 21 provides the preservation of life and liberty and cannot be interpreted to imply a right to its extinction, it cannot be interpreted to include the right to die. Additionally, the appellants’ argument supporting article 14 was without substance. Furthermore, it was requested that the decision made in P. Rathiram be re-examined due to its invalidity.
5. Another attorney argued that section 306 of the IPC was separate from section 309. Although he disagreed with the decision made in P. Rathiram to include the “right to die” within article 21 of the constitution, he agreed with the finding that section 309 is unconstitutional due to its arbitrary and barbarous nature. According to him, the punishment for attempting suicide is widely accepted to be cruel and violates section 14 of the constitution.

Judgement

The 5- Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that –

• The “Right to life and Personal Liberty” stated in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution excludes the “right to kill” and “right to die” since they are against God’s principles and nature. Nobody is entitled to hasten the process of dying. Therefore, Articles 21 and 14 are not violated by Section 309 of the IPC.
• The right to life is an unalienable right that may only be infringed through the application of the legal process. It does not include the right to die, but it does contain the right to live with dignity.
• The right to life encompasses more than just the ability to live an animal’s existence; it also includes the right to a dignified death and throughout one’s natural course of life. It should be noted, however, that these rights are not the same as the right to end one’s life through an unnatural means, like suicide.
• The decorousness of ending a person’s life before its natural course is not covered by the right to sustain with human dignity. Article 21, which guarantees the right to die with dignity, may apply to a person who is terminally sick or in a chronic vegetative state; nevertheless, this argument is not applicable in this particular situation. Therefore, it was decided that the euthanasia argument was meaningless.
• Regarding the legality of Section 306: No Indian citizen may face punishment for attempting suicide, but if someone helps another person commit suicide, they will face consequences that take society’s interests into consideration. Abetment to kill and plan to kill are separate offenses and hence section 306 will exist even without section 309.

Hence, the court dismissed the appeal and held both appellants accountable for aiding and abetting suicide as a result of setting aside the ruling in P. Rathinam v. UOI and concluded that Sections 306 and 309 of the IPC are constitutionally valid.

CONCLUSION

Only because the P. Rathinam case raised questions regarding the right to die made this case significant and required a solution. In order to prevent needless controversy and misunderstanding, situations involving constitutional adjudication must be handled with the utmost care and prudence. The Court should have additionally made an effort to determine whether punishing an attempted suicide is equitable, fair, and reasonable, or if Section 309 is “monstrous” and “barbaric.” In addition, this court has allowed discussions over the constitutionality of euthanasia to go without providing a clear definition, creating room for other disagreements that will be addressed in subsequent instances.

References

Ahmed, Z. S. (2022, March 31). Gian Kaur v State of Punjab – Case Analysis. Retrieved from Lawcorner

Chauhan, A. (2020, November 11). Case Commentary Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab. Retrieved from All India Legal Forum

Majumder, I. (2023, February 12). Important Judgement for CLAT 2024 : Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab. Retrieved from CLATalouge

Muskan. (2020, September 23). GIAN KAUR V. STATE OF PUNJAB (1996 AIR 946). Retrieved from Jus Corpus Law Journal