01 Read
What happened
India's Supreme Court has permitted passive euthanasia and advance medical directives through two landmark rulings: Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011) and Common Cause v. Union of India (2018). The Court held that the right to die with dignity falls within Article 21. Active euthanasia remains illegal. The 2018 ruling introduced a framework for living wills, allowing terminally ill patients to refuse life-sustaining treatment in advance, subject to procedural safeguards.
02 Understand
Why it matters
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Over decades, the Supreme Court has read this expansively to include the right to live with dignity — and, by extension, the right to die with dignity.
The journey began with P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994), where a two-judge bench held that the right to life includes the right to die, effectively decriminalising attempt to suicide under Section 309 IPC. However, the Supreme Court's five-judge constitutional bench in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996) overruled P. Rathinam and held that Article 21 does not include any right to die — natural or unnatural. Gian Kaur drew a firm distinction: the right to life cannot be extended to include extinction of life.
Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011) marked the next major shift. A two-judge bench permitted passive euthanasia — withdrawal of life support from patients in a persistent vegetative state — subject to High Court approval. Active euthanasia (administering a lethal substance) remained prohibited.
The constitutional position was definitively settled in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), where a five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously held that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right under Article 21. Crucially, the Court upheld advance medical directives (living wills), allowing a competent adult to record their wish to refuse extraordinary medical treatment if they later become terminally ill and incapacitated. The Court also modified Aruna Shanbaug's procedural requirements for withdrawing life support.
Active euthanasia — where a doctor administers a lethal dose to end life — remains illegal in India and amounts to culpable homicide.
The journey began with P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994), where a two-judge bench held that the right to life includes the right to die, effectively decriminalising attempt to suicide under Section 309 IPC. However, the Supreme Court's five-judge constitutional bench in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996) overruled P. Rathinam and held that Article 21 does not include any right to die — natural or unnatural. Gian Kaur drew a firm distinction: the right to life cannot be extended to include extinction of life.
Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011) marked the next major shift. A two-judge bench permitted passive euthanasia — withdrawal of life support from patients in a persistent vegetative state — subject to High Court approval. Active euthanasia (administering a lethal substance) remained prohibited.
The constitutional position was definitively settled in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), where a five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously held that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right under Article 21. Crucially, the Court upheld advance medical directives (living wills), allowing a competent adult to record their wish to refuse extraordinary medical treatment if they later become terminally ill and incapacitated. The Court also modified Aruna Shanbaug's procedural requirements for withdrawing life support.
Active euthanasia — where a doctor administers a lethal dose to end life — remains illegal in India and amounts to culpable homicide.
Remember + Why it matters
The key recall facts and exact examiner angle for CLAT PG are in the Crux app.
01
Key figure and date from this topic
02
Specific number or threshold to remember
03
Policy or regulatory implication
Read + Understand free forever · 30-day free trial