Pragathi U Bhat, PES University, Faculty of Law
ABSTRACT
It is a universal truth that the protection of life is the duty of the State. To this effect, the makers of our Constitution included the protection of life and personal liberty in Article 21 of Part III of the Constitution. A reading of Article 21 of the Constitution of India gives the idea that the provision entails the protection of life and the personal liberty of any person in India without the bar that they must be a citizen of India. Having said this, the question arises whether the provision also includes the right to die. This dilemma has been posed to the Courts of India in numerous cases which has resulted in controversial and ambiguous decisions. The uncertain stance of law on the issue and lack of awareness amongst the public has created an air of reluctance among the healthcare professionals with regard to end-of-life care.
But the question remains, should the protection of life be extended to cases where it is not possible for the person to live a life of dignity? If the article protects personal liberty, why is there a need for having restrictive laws on suicide and euthanasia, where it is not in the best interest of the person to continue his life. This paper aims to answer the above-mentioned questions with an elaborate analysis of the cases that have led to the present position of law in India. The paper also aims to bring out the contradicting provisions that deem suicide to be a criminal offence and the right to die protected by the Constitution. Additionally, the paper focuses on elaborating on the decisions of the courts as a consequence of which passive euthanasia is allowed to be practiced in India. Additionally, the paper focuses on examining the laws in various countries in the area of euthanasia.The method of research followed in this paper is review of literature.
Keywords: suicide, Article 21, right to die, euthanasia, permanent vegetative state, active and passive euthanasia.
