The Rights of the Deceased: Moral Rights Incidental to Copyright Law
- Vanshika Agrawal
- 2024-04-25
Contents hide
1.1 Court on Corollary Right to life
2.1 Ethics and Human Value held at New Delhi in 1986[9] which stated that
3 Euthanasia And Right To Life
4 Active euthanasia and Passive euthanasia
Euthanasia-
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law”
Right to Life is enshrined in Article 21 of our Constitution, this right includes within its bounds the right to live with dignity. The question of whether right to life which is a ‘natural right’ contains within
its ambit the ‘Right to Die’ is the one which has garnered a lot of deliberation and discussion.
This question was discussed at length in the judgment of Maruti Shripati Dubai v. State of Maharashtra[1], the court relied on the reasoning of the court in Excel Wear v. Union of India[2] in which it was held that “It is not and cannot be seriously disputed that the fundamental rights have their positive as well as negative aspects. For example, the freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of speech and
expression includes the freedom not to speak and to remain silent. The freedom of association and movement likewise includes the freedom not to join any association or to move anywhere. Freedom of business and occupation includes the freedom not to do business and to close down the existing business”.
The court based its reasoning on this decision and a held that a corollary right to life would also include a right to not live, i.e. a right to die. However, the Supreme Court in Gian Kaur v the State of Punjab[3] adopted a discordant frame of reference and stated that Right to Life does not incorporate within its realm the ‘Right to die’ or ‘Right to be killed’. The Court further opined that though the right to life is a natural right, the same connotation could not be extend to the right to die, in the same vein holding that Section 309 of
the Indian Penal Code 1860 which places suicide into the class of punishable offence is not unconstitutional.
In the same case the Hon’ble Court also held that
“To give meaning and content to the word ‘life’ in Article 21, it has been construe as life with human dignity.”[4] Further, the Apex Court also of the opinion that “ The right to life including the right to live with human dignity would mean the existence of such a right up to the end of natural life.”[5] Thereby attempting to strike a balance between the two seemingly irreconcilable rights.
In the judgement of Francis Coralie Mullin Vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Ors. [6], this Hon’ble Court pondered on the question of
“whether the right to life is limited only to the protection of limb or faculty or does it go further and embrace something more. It held that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings”.[7] Thereby implicitly stating that dignity is an indispensable limb of right to life.
In P.Rathinam vs Union Of India[8], the court relied on the expertise of Dr. M. Indira and Dr. Alka Dhal by referring to their commendable work in the article ‘Meaning of life, suffering and death’ as read in the International Conference on Health Policy,
“Life is not mere living but living in health. Health is not the absence of illness but a glowing vitality-the feeling of wholeness with a capacity for continuous intellectual and spiritual growth. Physical, social, spiritual and psychological wellbeing are intrinsically interwoven into the fabric of life”[10].
based on this, the court established that the right to life brings within in its trail the right not to live a forced life full of drudgery.[11]
Further, in the judgment of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs Union Of India[12], the court held “the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity, and in the case of a dying person who is terminally ill or in a permanent vegetative state he may be permitted to terminate it by a premature extinction of his life in these circumstances”.[13] The decision of the Hon’ble Court in Aruna Shanbaug case was in congruity with Gian Kaur case forasmuch as accelerating the inevitable demise due to pre-existing medical condition was concerned, such
cases were to be treat with a considerable difference from an unnatural death.
In the judgment of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh[14] , the court emphasised the view of a US Court in Munn v. Illinois[15]that the right to life is not simply limited to the right of mere animal existence, but also a protection to the right of a person to enjoy his/her life in a dignified manner.
Further, in the Aruna Shaubaug Case[16], the Supreme Court held that “the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity, and in the case of a dying person who is terminally ill or in a permanent vegetative state he may be permitted to terminate it by a premature extinction of his life in these circumstances”.[17]
It further held that:
“ A person who is capable of deciding for himself, decides that he would prefer to die (which may be for various reasons e.g. that he is in great pain or that the money being spent on his treatment should instead be given to his family who is in greater need, etc.), and for this purpose he consciously and of his own free will refuses to take life-saving medicines. In India, if a person consciously and voluntarily refuses to take life-saving medical treatment it is not a crime.”[18].
In the aforementioned case, not only did the Apex Court provide a comprehensive definition of passive euthanasia
but also dispelled any doubts regarding the permissibility of it and the situations that warrant it. The court held that
“Passive euthanasia entails withholding of medical treatment for continuance of life, e.g. withholding of antibiotics where without giving it a patient is likely to die, or removing the heart-lung machine, from a patient in a coma. The general legal position all over the world seems to be that while active euthanasia is illegal unless there is legislation permitting it, passive euthanasia is legal even without legislation provide certain conditions and safeguards are maintain”.[19]
Thus the Supreme Court also bought into light the underlying difference between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. The former would contain within its rondure an active termination of life whereas
the latter would be limit to withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. The 241st Law Commission Report bought more perspicuity to it, the report provides that active euthanasia involves taking a definitive step towards ending a patiants life
whereas passive euthanasia curtail to refusal to preserve a patient’s life who is inveterate and is not bound to recover.
The Supreme Court went one step forward in the landmark judgment of Common Cause (Regd Society) v. Union of India[20] and held that “When a competent patient has the right to decide on medical treatment, concerning medical procedure entailing the right to die with dignity, the said right cannot be denied to those patients who have become incompetent to make an informed decision at the relevant time.”[21] Thereby it can be inferred that when a is in a permanent vegetative state and the medical practitioners have adjudged that his situation is not likely to improve, in such circumstances, passive euthanasia is legal and valid. No law declares the same as an unlawful and committing homicide.
The sanctity of human life is not found the boroughs of pain, suffering and drudgery. The right to dignity as enshrined in right to life ensures that
a person is not push towards living to he detriment. Thereby it can be inferred concluded that when a patient is in a permanent vegetative state and
the medical practitioners have adjudged that his situation is not likely to improve, in such circumstances, passive euthanasia is legal and valid. No law declares the same as an unlawful and committing homicide. This would not amount to extinguishing a life but only setting the wheels in motion towards natural death which has on its own commenced.
[1] Maruti Shripati Dubai v. State of Maharashtra, 1987 (1) BomC R499,
[2]Excel Wear v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 25
[3] Gian Kaur v The State of Punjab,(1996)2SCC 648.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6]Francis Coralie Mullin Vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Ors., AIR 1981 SC 746
[7] Id.
[8] P.Rathinam vs Union Of India, 1994 AIR 1844
[9] Pushkar Thakur , Waiver of Fundamental Right, LEGAL SERVICES INDIA(28/09/2020), egalservicesindia.com/article/203/Waiver-Of-Fundamental-Rights.html.
[10] Supra note 10.
[11] Supra note 1.
[12] Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs Union Of India (2011)4 SCC 454.
[13] Id.
[14] Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295
[15] Munn v. Illinois (1877) 94 US 113
[16] Supra note 12.
[17] Id.
[18] ID.
[19] Id.
[20] Common Cause (Regd Society) v. Union of India ,2018 5 S.C.C.1
[21] ID.
Drop your comment