Published on: 19th April 2026
Authored by: Rubijit Saha
Gitarattan International Business School affiliated with GGSIPU
“I think those who have a terminal illness and are in great pain should have the right to choose to end their own life, and those who help them should be free from prosecution.” – Stephen Hawking.
ABSTRACT
This research paper addressed the complex ethical, legal, and constitutional questions of the absolute value of life and an individual’s autonomy that are brought up by the euthanasia debate. One of the most contentious issues in our constitutional laws is euthanasia, along with discussion about human rights and medical ethics. Through a series of significant court rulings, including Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, and Common Cause v. Union of India, the interpretation of the right to die under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has gradually evolved. The Indian judiciary has progressively created a legal framework that permits passive euthanasia under certain stringent guidelines by the Supreme Court. Therefore, this research paper examines the judicial evolution of euthanasia laws in India and how courts have balanced individual autonomy with societal and ethical considerations.
INTRODUCTION
In April 2001, the Netherlands passed the ‘Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act,’ making it the first to legalize active euthanasia and becoming the first country in the world to pass a law in April 2002. However, Belgium became the second country in the world to pass a law in 2002 to legalize euthanasia. This law mentioned that doctors can help patients to end their lives when they freely express a wish to die after suffering unbearable pain. Patients can also receive euthanasia if they have clearly stated it before entering a coma or a similar vegetative state. Interestingly, Belgium became the first country to legalise euthanasia for children in 2014. There is no age limit for minors seeking a lethal injection, but there are strict norms for it.[1]
In India, the “Right to Life” is a fundamental right of every citizen and is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, which states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” Thus, Article 21 has two rights: the right to life and the right to personal liberty. Article 21 was established by the Government of India Act, 1935. While this fundamental right primarily focuses on preserving every citizen’s life in India, the Indian judiciary has also interpreted it to include the right to live with dignity. However, the question arises whether this right extends to the right to end one’s life or the right to die.
Similarly, the ‘Right to Die’ refers to the idea that if a person is terminally ill, then they should have the right to make their own end-of-life decisions. Here, the concept of death was referred to especially as voluntary death through euthanasia, and it often conflicts with some of the societal, cultural, and legal norms. Historically, the legal system has dealt with the illegal act of suicide, which was punishable under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, as philosophical discussions and medical developments have progressed, the law has begun to acknowledge the situations in which euthanasia, or the ‘right to die,’ may be appropriate. The concept of euthanasia refers to intentionally ending the life of a patient who is suffering from an incurable illness or unbearable pain to relieve them from suffering.
METHODS OF EUTHANASIA
ACTIVE EUTHANASIA: When a doctor intentionally ends the life of a terminally ill patient by administering a fatal medication.
PASSIVE EUTHANASIA: The act of withholding or discontinuing life-sustaining care.
TYPES OF EUTHANASIA
VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA: When a patient who is killed has requested to be killed.
NON-VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA: When a patient in a vegetative state is killed, they are unable to express their desires and do not make any requests or give their consent.
INVOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA: When the patient who is killed made an express wish not to be killed.[2]
INDIA’S POSITION ON ACTIVE AND PASSIVE EUTHANASIA
Active Euthanasia – In India, it was illegal and punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Passive Euthanasia – In India, it was legal under strict judicial guidelines that were set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
LANDMARK CASE LAWS
GIAN KAUR V. STATE OF PUNJAB (1996)[3]
The right to die or to be killed is not covered by the right to life under Article 21, as this case confirmed. The Supreme Court ruled that euthanasia and suicide are incompatible with the idea of the right to life, which is a basic human right of Indian citizens. Passive euthanasia, which permits the refusal of life support, was also proposed by the court as a potential solution.
ARUNA SHANBAUG V. UNION OF INDIA (2011)[4]
In this historic case, the Supreme Court addressed the subject of “passive euthanasia.” This case concerned Arun Shanbaug, a nurse who had been in a vegetative state for years after being brutally attacked. The Court approved passive euthanasia, ruling that removing life support could allow a person to pass away with dignity if they are in a permanent vegetative state with no chance of recovery.
COMMON CAUSE V. UNION OF INDIA (2018)[5]
An important turning point for India’s right to die was the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling. The “right to die with dignity” was unanimously acknowledged as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Additionally, the court approved passive euthanasia and allowed terminally ill patients to make end-of-life decisions by creating a “living will,” also known as an advance directive.
HARISH RANA V. UNION OF INDIA (2026)[6]
On March 11, 2026, after spending 13 years in a persistent vegetative state, Harish Rana was allowed to die with dignity under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
CONCLUSION
In the Indian Constitution under Article 21, a constitutional interpretation has evolved gradually but significantly, as evidenced by India’s judicial approach to euthanasia. The judiciary gradually recognized the significance of individual autonomy and dignity in end-of-life decisions, from the restrictive stance in the case of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996), where the right to die was denied as part of every citizen’s right to life, to the historic recognition of passive euthanasia in the case of Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011); the revolutionary ruling in the case of Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), where the court approved passive euthanasia and allowed terminally ill patients to make end-of-life decisions by creating a “living will,” also known as an advance directive; and finally, in the case of Harish Rana v. Union of India (2026), where after spending 13 years in a persistent vegetative state, Harish Rana (32-year-old) has been allowed to die with dignity under Article 21 of the Indian constitution by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Therefore, the Indian Judiciary has interpreted Article 21 of the Indian Constitution not only as a protection of life but also as a safeguard of dignity, which extends its scope to encompass the right to die with dignity.
[1] News 18.com, Even Before India, Netherlands Legalised Euthanasia in 2002, Belgium Gave the Right to Minors in ’14, (March 09, 2018).
[2] Sonu Sharma, ‘Right to Die with Dignity’ (May 19, 2023), https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-to-die-with-dignity/.
[3] Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab [1996] AIR 946, 1996 SCC (2) 648.
[4] Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India [2011] AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 1290, 2011 (4) SCC 454
[5] Common Cause v. Union of India [2018] AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 1665,
[6] Harish Rana v. Union of India [2026] AIR 2026 SUPREME COURT
