Understanding Active Euthanasia in India Through Legal Battles

The debate surrounding active euthanasia in India is very complex, intersecting law, morality, and medicine. Active euthanasia is the deliberate ending of a person’s life through medical means and remains strictly prohibited.

What is Active Euthanasia in India?

Active euthanasia in India is the direct act of ending someone’s life to relieve them from intense, incurable suffering, usually through a medically administered injection or drug. It is different from passive euthanasia, where medical support is simply withdrawn. While passive euthanasia is allowed under specific guidelines, active euthanasia is treated as a criminal offense under Indian law. [Clause 101 of BNS (previously Section 302 IPC) – covering murder. Clause 106 of BNS (previously Section 306 IPC) – covering abetment of suicide.]

The Legal Journey: How Courts Handled It

Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)

This case was the starting point for judicial consideration of active euthanasia in India. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution does not include the right to die. As a result, both suicide and any form of assisted suicide, including active euthanasia, remained illegal.

Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011)

This case marked a significant turning point. Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse who had been in a vegetative state for decades, became the face of the euthanasia debate in India. The Supreme Court, while refusing active euthanasia, allowed passive euthanasia under strict conditions, requiring High Court approval and expert medical opinions. The Court made it clear that legalizing active euthanasia in India would require parliamentary legislation, not judicial intervention.

Common Cause v. Union of India (2018)

In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court held that the right to die with dignity is a part of the right to life under Article 21. It legalized passive euthanasia nationwide and acknowledged that living wills and advance directives were legitimate. However, the Court again restated that active euthanasia in India remains outside the scope of law unless Parliament enacts a specific statute.

High Court Responses to Petitions

Despite the Supreme Court’s Decisions, several High Courts have continued to receive pleas for active euthanasia:

In Chandrakant Tandale v. State of Maharashtra, a man suffering from progressive muscular dystrophy pleaded for permission to die with medical assistance. The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition, holding that it had no power to allow active euthanasia in India.

Other similar petitions, including Harish Rana v. Union of India, where a terminally ill cancer patient, Harish Rana, approached the Delhi High Court seeking active euthanasia. The court rejected the request, affirming that Indian law permits only passive euthanasia under strict conditions and that active euthanasia remains a criminal act unless specifically legalized by legislation.

Both courts acknowledged the petitioner’s suffering but emphasized that only Parliament can legalize active euthanasia in India.

Current Legal Status 

Currently, passive euthanasia is legally allowed in India, but only under specific conditions set by the Supreme Court, such as approval from a medical board and a valid living will. In contrast, active euthanasia remains illegal and is classified as a criminal offense under Clauses 101 and 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, equating it with murder or abetment of suicide.

Ethically, active euthanasia in India raises complex questions. Petitioners argue that allowing it respects personal autonomy and relieves unbearable suffering. However, Respondents worry about possible misuse in a healthcare system where many lack access to proper care or safeguards. Concerns include coercion, family pressure, or wrongful decisions made under emotional or financial distress. These risks explain why Indian law permits only passive forms of euthanasia, with court supervision, and leaves active euthanasia to be addressed through future legislation.

Conclusion

The fight to legalize active euthanasia in India has unfolded entirely through the country’s courts. The judiciary has gradually shifted its interpretation of the right to life, but it has consistently stopped short of permitting active euthanasia in India. The Supreme Court has made it clear that this is a matter for Parliament to address.

Until legislators act, active euthanasia in India remains illegal, despite growing public discourse and individual pleas. The legal battles so far have opened the door for discussion but have also drawn a firm line: passive euthanasia with oversight is permitted, but direct medical action to end a life is not. Whether that will change in the future remains to be seen, but the legal groundwork has already been laid.

FAQs