THE RIGHT TO DIE – SHOULD IT BE MINE TO CHOOSE?

A CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS UNDER INDIAN LAW

AUTHOR – ANOUSHA ABENI DAS, STUDENT AT SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY)

BEST CITATION – ANOUSHA ABENI DAS, THE RIGHT TO DIE – SHOULD IT BE MINE TO CHOOSE? A CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS UNDER INDIAN LAW, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (3) OF 2026, PG. 279-287, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

ABSTRACT

This article examines the legal and constitutional dimensions of the right to die in India, with particular focus on the interplay between Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, and evolving judicial doctrine. The right to die — encompassing passive euthanasia and the execution of advance medical directives — has long occupied an uncertain position in Indian law. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996) firmly denied any constitutional recognition of a right to die, grounding its analysis in the sanctity of life. Subsequent developments in Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011) and Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India (2018) marked a significant doctrinal shift, recognizing that the right to live with dignity under Article 21 necessarily extends to the right to die with dignity in cases of terminal illness or permanent vegetative state.

The article critically evaluates the persistent tension between judicial recognition and statutory silence. While the Supreme Court has established procedural safeguards for passive euthanasia and living wills, the BNS continues to criminalize attempted suicide (Section 224) and abetment of suicide (Section 107), generating a fragmented legal landscape. The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 partially bridges this gap by presuming that suicide attempts arise from severe stress rather than criminal intent, yet a comprehensive legislative framework governing end-of-life decisions remains absent. Through a comparative analysis of international jurisprudence — including Pretty v. United Kingdom (ECHR, 2002), Carter v. Canada (2015), and Dutch and Belgian euthanasia legislation — this article argues that India’s current framework, though constitutionally progressive, is operationally deficient. The article concludes with normative recommendations for legislative codification, institutional safeguards, and medical guidelines to ensure that the right to die with dignity is meaningful, equitable, and protective of vulnerable populations.

Keywords: Right to Die, Article 21, Passive Euthanasia, Advance Directives, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Mental Healthcare Act, Constitutional Morality, Dignity, Autonomy, End-of-Life Law.