Published on: 19th April 2026
Authored by: Daisy Kumari
Amity Law School, Amity University Jharkhand
INTRODUCTION
The most vital thing within India’s Constitution is the protection and guarantee of the dignity of every person. The right to life guaranteed under Article 21 also covers issues regarding a person’s right to die, thus protecting individuals during the period of time between when they are alive and have died.
As courts have often ruled in cases dealing with whether a person has a right to an assisted death or the ability to choose to die with dignity; since there is no express prohibition against euthanasia or assisted dying built into the Constitution.
In contrast, there is a growing body of law that has addressed these same issues within the last few years.
This paper will explain the law regarding these two issues in India. It will attempt to show how recent case law may create new rights for individuals either to receive an assisted death, or, at a minimum, to die with dignity as part of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights (1948).
Keywords:
Human Dignity, Right to Life, Article 21, End of Life Rights, Passive Euthanasia, Living Will, Constitutional Jurisprudence, Patient Autonomy, Medical Ethics, Harish Rana vs Union of India, Common Cause vs Union of India.
CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK OF THE RIGHT TO DIE WITH DIGNITY
The Constitution of India offers substantial protection of human dignity within its text. Specifically, we would say Article 21 addresses the right to life and personal liberty; therefore, based upon the wording of this provision, the Supreme Court of India has developed a broad interpretation that means individuals possess those rights without which they cannot live with dignity (which have included many of today’s most frequently discussed rights such as: the right to privacy, the right to health care, the right to a means of livelihood, and the right to be treated with dignity).
The courts’ evolving interpretation of Article 21 continually extends beyond just surviving physically to being able to live with dignity and independently making personal choices about how to live their lives. The many different forms of personal autonomy raise challenging questions, such as whether or not an individual can refuse treatment or life sustaining measures when he/she is dying.
The new age of medical care, with its ability to extend life even where there are no longer added benefits on the individual’s life, has also created ethical challenges for the courts. As a result of these legal challenges, they have needed to explore whether or not the right to die (with dignity), is part of an individual’s rights as described in Article 21.
JUDICIAL EVOLUTION OF THE RIGHT TO DIE WITH DIGNITY
Early Judicial Interpretation
The Supreme Court was first confronted with issues regarding the right to die when Gian Kaur v Punjab State came before it. In this case, the Court considered whether or not a person’s right to life as protected by Article 21, also included a person’s right to commit suicide. The Supreme Court indicated that a person’s right to live does not include a person’s right to die. That said, the Supreme Court also indicated that a person’s right to have a dignified death might be within the broader scope of the definition of the right to die under certain circumstances.
Although the Supreme Court did rule that there is no general right to die, the Court’s ruling opened up a possibility for future debate regarding the dignity of an individual at the end of their life.
Recognition of Passive Euthanasia
The courts have reached a milestone in the case of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v Union of India. The case involved the treatment of Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse who had experienced a tragic and brutal assault and had been in a coma for most of her adult life. This case raised important ethical and legal questions regarding whether or not life-sustaining treatments should be continued when an individual is in an irreversible coma due to an injury from a violent act.
The Supreme Court determined that passive euthanasia remains legal when done with supervision by a court of law. Although actively assisting someone in dying is a crime, the law does allow physicians to remove life-sustaining medical treatments from patients when recovery is not reasonably possible. Additionally, guidelines were created by the Court, requiring that before withdrawing any form of life sustaining medical treatment (including the use of mechanical ventilators) from patients, doctors must seek and receive approval from a high court.
The decision of the Supreme Court of India is a major milestone in the recognition of passive euthanasia under Indian law for the first time.
Expansion through the Common Cause Case
The Supreme Court in Common Cause v Union of India made it clear that having a right to die with dignity is included within the definition of Article 21. The Supreme Court has also formally recognized written advance expressions of someone’s wish for treatment, referred to as “living wills,” who becomes unable over time to make these types of decisions. The Supreme Court expressly emphasizes patient rights to act autonomously; have informed consent; and be treated with respect and dignity when providing care as they are near death.
The Common Cause (supranational) court’s decisions on living wills and euthanasia through passively allowing them legally supported all individuals’ rights to maintain their dignity at the end of their life.
RECENT JUDICIAL DEVELOPMENT: HARSH RANA CASE
The Supreme Court of India made headlines this past month by hearing the case of Harish Rana v. Union of India. In this case, a patient was in a permanent vegetative state for many years, and his family petitioned the Supreme Court to remove him from life support because they felt it only prolonged his suffering and provided no chance for recovery. The Court examined the medical evidence and referred to several prior rulings before allowing the family to remove the patient from life support, contingent upon sound medical oversight. The Supreme Court ruled that every person has the right to die with dignity, which is part of the right to life as provided for by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Additionally, the Supreme Court reiterated the importance of safeguards against misuse, such as requiring an evaluation by a medical board and obtaining a judge’s authorization prior to permitting someone to die with dignity. This ruling has also renewed the need for comprehensive end-of-life regulations in India.
LEGAL AND ETHICAL CHALLENGES
While there has been a judicial finding regarding the right to die with dignity, many legal and ethical dilemmas exist and some of these include the possibility of misusing such rights and coercive acts (especially against seniors or other vulnerable individuals). Often times, there is family or caregiver pressure on a patient to remove life support (for either financial or personal reasons). Also, many people do not know what living wills or advanced directives are, or that they have the right to make their own decisions regarding how their body receives medical treatment at the end of their life. This lack of awareness limits the effective implementation of the already existing legal framework developed by the courts.
Additionally, doctors face ethical issues in relation to the patient, their right to die with dignity and the doctor’s duty to preserve life. In order to balance the responsibility to ensure that the patient is treated with respect and dignity, there is a need for comprehensive legal guidelines and ethical standards. There is also a cultural component that will affect how individuals in India view death and euthanasia; therefore policymakers will need to take this into account when establishing laws related to assisted suicide or euthanasia.
CONCLUSION
In recent years, India has gradually advanced constitutional jurisprudence that includes recognition of human dignity as vital. This has occurred through the progressive interpretation by the Supreme Court of the Indian Constitution so that in addition to the right to a dignified life under Article 21, the right to a dignified death may also be interpreted to fall within the meaning of this article in specific circumstances.
Many landmark cases have played a significant role in establishing the legal framework governing euthanasia and end-of-life care (“right to die”). Notable among these are Gian Kaur, Aruna Shanbaug, and Common Cause. Additionally, the continuing development of a principle to preserve dignity during the final phase of life was recently highlighted in the case of Harish Rana v. Union of India.
There remains no comprehensive legislation governing the development and implementation of these principles and, therefore, the application of such principles will continue to remain uncertain. It is imperative that a clear legislative framework be provided that has regard to the harmonisation of autonomy of the patient, medical ethics, and the societal dimension surrounding the decisions involved in euthanasia or care of persons at the end of life.
In this regard, recognition of an individual’s right to die with dignity represents a consistent, humane, and compassionate interpretation of constitutional values. In addition, this recognition of dignity enables the law to protect individual autonomy as well as the preservation of human dignity during the most vulnerable periods of life.
REFERENCES
Legislation
• Constitution of India, Article 21.
Case Laws
1. Gian Kaur v State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 648 (Supreme Court of India).
2. Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 454 (Supreme Court of India).
3. Common Cause v Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1 (Supreme Court of India).
4. Harish Rana v Union of India, Supreme Court of India, 2026.
5. P Rathinam v Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 394.
Books
1. M. P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (8th edn, LexisNexis 2018).
2. V. D. Mahajan, Constitutional Law of India (12th edn, Eastern Book Company 2021).
3. H. M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India (Universal Law Publishing 2019).
4. Durga Das Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (LexisNexis 2015).
5. Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, Law and the People (National Book Trust).
Journal Articles
1. Radhika Rao, “Euthanasia and the Right to Die with Dignity,” Indian Journal of Constitutional Law.
2. S. K. Verma, “Passive Euthanasia and the Indian Legal Framework,” Journal of Indian Law Institute.
3. Anup Surendranath, “Autonomy and End-of-Life Decisions in India,” National Law School Journal.
Websites / Online Sources
1. The Legal Quorum – https://www.thelegalquorum.com
2. Supreme Court of India – https://main.sci.gov.in
3. LiveLaw – https://www.livelaw.in
4. Bar and Bench – https://www.barandbench.com
5. SCC Online – https://www.scconline.com
6. PRS Legislative Research – https://prsindia.org
7. World Health Organization – https://www.who.int (for medical ethics and end-of-life care discussions).
