FACTS IN BRIEF :- The Appellant Gian Kaur and her husband were convicted by the Trial Court for abetment to suicide of one Kulwant Kaur. The Appellant challenged the conviction, stating thereby that Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was unconstitutional. The said challenge was based upon the decision of a division bench of the Supreme Court in P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 394 wherein Section 309 of IPC had been declared unconstitutional as being violative of Article 21. The matter was raised before a divisional bench of the Court, which considering the importance of the issue, referred it to a Constitutional Bench of five judges.
ARGUMENTS:- The following arguments were raised before the Supreme Court;
1. The Appellants contended that ‘right to die’ had become a fundamental rights under Article 21 after the decision of P. Rathinam and therefore Section 306 of IPC, which did not allow another to assist in the enforcement of this fundamental right to die, was unconstitutional.
2. They also submitted that since it was settled that Article 21 had a wide meaning wherein the term 'life' does not mean 'mere animal existence' but 'right to live with human dignity' embracing quality of life, logically it must follow that right to live would include right not to live i.e. right to die or to terminate one's life.
3. As an amicus curie, Fali J. Nariman submitted that Article 21 could not be construed to include within it the so-called 'right to die' since Article 21 guaranteed protection of life and liberty and not its extinction.
4. Another amicus curie , Soli J. Sorabjee submitted that Section 306 could survive independently of Section 309 IPC, as it does not violate either Article 14 or Article 21 as was the case with section 306.
JUDGMENT:- The Supreme Court negated the contention that right to life included the right to terminate one’s life. It observed, ‘the right to die', if any is inherently inconsistent with the 'right to life' as inconsistent is 'death with life’ and thus over-ruled the decision in P. Rathinam and, therefore, Sections 306 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code was declared to be constitutional. The Court specifically rejected the argument of mercy killing or euthanasia as not permissible in India owing to the protection given under Article 21.
FOR COMMON MAN:- The judgment is consequential on account of the following;
1. The Court observed that the protection under Article 21 was of protective nature and thus could not be read so as to make the right to live with dignity be interpreted as the right to end one’s life if was not capable of dignified existence.
2. Article 21 was characterized as having positive content only , as contrary to other fundamental rights which could be interpreted both positively as well as negatively such as, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of movement, freedom of business etc. wherein, the right to do included the right not to do.
3. The ‘right to commit suicide’ (or ‘to die’) was held to be not available in India on account of the specific restriction under section 306 and 309 under the Indian Penal Code.
4. This case is an illustrious example of the doctrine of eclipse. The unconstitutionality imposed on Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code in P. Rathinam was reversed in this case and thus a law which was void and inapplicable was rendered valid and applicable again. The section remained a dead law during the interval but it did not cease to exist.
Thus the Supreme Court seems to have reaffirmed the view that the life of an individual is not his own but belongs to the society. Thus, it being in the interests of the society, he shall not be allowed to end it prematurely, prior to a natural end.
0 Comments