Nikhil Srivastava, Symbiosis Law School, Pune
ABSTRACT
This research paper investigates the complex terrain of euthanasia within the Indian legal context, with a particular focus on the landmark decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug and Common Cause cases. Euthanasia, a subject fraught with moral, medical, and legal complexities, is explored through an analysis of passive euthanasia, the deliberate withholding of life-sustaining interventions, and its compatibility with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which safeguards the right to life and personal liberty. The study unveils the judiciary's perplexing oscillation, notably the disparity between the Aruna Shanbaug case, which legalized passive euthanasia, and the earlier stance in the Gian Kaur case, mandating legislative action for such authorization. This inconsistency underscores the urgent need for judicial coherence in addressing the nuanced dimensions of the right to die with dignity. Furthermore, the paper traces the evolving jurisprudential perspectives regarding the right to die with dignity and Article 21. It navigates through earlier interpretations that correlated the right to die with the right to life, followed by challenges that questioned this association. Ultimately, it scrutinizes the Common Cause case, which firmly establishes the right to die with dignity as an integral facet of the right to life and dignity under Article 21. This research underscores the profound significance of the Common Cause decision, not only affirming individual autonomy over life's closure but also enacting a robust framework of safeguards to pre-empt potential misapplications of this right. By providing clarity within the intricate labyrinth of euthanasia discourse, this study contributes to the ongoing ethical and legal dialogues while respecting the sanctity of life and preserving human dignity.
Keywords: Euthanasia, Right to die with dignity, Judicial Inconsistency, Supreme Court & Indian Constitution.
Comments