Euthanasia, or the right to die, has long been debated and scrutinized. This paper examines its constitutional validity and its relation to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life with dignity and bodily integrity. It explores interpretations of Article 21 in the context of the right to die in India.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution protects fundamental rights, including the right to life and personal liberty. It ensures that no person can be deprived of life or personal liberty except by established legal procedures. This article aims to explore the comprehensive meaning of the right to life and its implications, citing legal precedents like A.K. Gopalan v. Union of India.
Life, Die, Article 21
To analyze the ethical and legal dimensions of the right to die in India through qualitative analysis, empirical study, literature review, and answering the research questions.
The ethical debate on euthanasia dates back to ancient times, with philosophers like Plato weighing in against active euthanasia but supporting passive euthanasia in cases of terminal illness or irrecoverable suffering. Modern ethical theories like consequentialism justify passive euthanasia based on its beneficial outcomes for suffering individuals.
In India, the legal stance on euthanasia evolved through cases like State of Maharashtra v. Maruti Sripati Dubal and P. Rathinam v. Union of India. While initially ruling suicide as unconstitutional under Section 309 of the IPC, subsequent judgments clarified that the right to life under Article 21 does not inherently include the right to die. The distinction between euthanasia and suicide was crucial in legal deliberations.
Leave a comment