Here is your essay on “Euthanasia” (Right to Die) in India:
There are several circumstances in our human life in which we wish to end our life, such as in case of incurable disease, cruel or unbearable conditions of life, a sense of shame or disenchantment with life, etc. Nowadays the complications of human life have increased in wide range.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In this competitive world to live with comfort, mental peace and satisfaction is not an easy task, a greed of more and more happiness does not let us sit calm and everyone wants basic amenities of life which are essential to live with happiness, it is the responsibility of state to protect individual from external aggression as well as to provide basic amenities for his survival with the emerging concept of welfare state.
But if anyone could not get these basic amenities for his survival, or suffering with incurable disease and proceeding towards death slowly whether in such situation can he end his life?
Image Source: thebluediamondgallery.com
It is the most debatable questions whether a person should have a right to die like a right to live.
In our constitution there is provision for Right of Life under Article 21. But there is no such Right like right to die. On the other hand, if any person tries to end his life, he is made punishable under section 309 of Indian penal code.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The question first arose in case of State of Maharashtra v. Maruty Sripati Dubai, 1987 Cr. LJ 549 that whether the ‘Right to Die’ is included in Art. 21 of the constitution before Bombay High court. In this case a Bombay police constable who was mentally deranged was refused permission to set up a shop and earn a living out of frustration; he tried to set himself a fire in the corporation’s office room.
The Bombay High Court held that the right to life guaranteed by Art. 21 includes a right to die, and consequently the court struck down section 309, I.P.C. which provides punishment for attempt to commit suicide by a person as unconstitutional and the judge held that, everyone should have the freedom to dispose of his life as and when he desires.
This decision of Bombay High Court created a large controversy and created a variety of views in society on this issue. On the other hand, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chenna Jagadeeswar v. State of A.P., 1988 CR LJ 549 Court held that the right to die is not a fundamental right within the meaning of Art. 21 and hence section 309 IPC is not unconstitutional.
This decision of A.P. High Court is exactly opposite in view as compared to Maruti Sripat Dubai’s case and so there is more scope of controversy in those days. Number of Lawyers, Judges, social workers, even common persons has given their opinion on this issue and such issue had become the most highlighted topic.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
It is true that normally a man is to live and to continue to enjoy the fruits of life till his life is ended by nature. Suicide or an attempt to commit suicide is not a feature of natural life.
The same issue was again raised before Supreme Court in P. Rathinam v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 394 In this case the petitioners had challenged the validity of section 309 on the ground that it was violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution and
The S.C. held that section 309 of the IPC was violative of Art. 21 and hence it is void. A person cannot be forced to enjoy right to life to his detriment, disadvantage or disliking. The Court held that section 309, IPC was “a cruel and irrational provision”. The court also held that “Right to Life” of which Article 21 of the constitution speaks of can be said to bring in its trial the right not to live a forced life.
But rejected the contention that Sec. 309 was violative of Art. 14 on the ground that attempt to commit suicide is undefined and unguided and also rejected the plea that “Euthanasia” should be permitted in law. Because there were not any provision for Right to die in our constitution or any other code or penal laws and so it is clear that the Court disapproved the decision of Bombay High Court in Maruti Sripati Dubai’s case.
This judgment may have come as a hope of liberation of some who are tried to commit suicide this decision of S.C. criticized from all corners of society. Because if Right to Life is guaranteed and Sec. 309 has become unconstitutional, it creates many social problem and seeing into such problems finally in.
A Five Judges Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has not overruled the P. Rathinam’s case and rightly, held that “Right to Life” under Article 21 of the constitution does not include “Right to die” or “Right to be killed”. The “Right to die”, is inherently inconsistent with the “Right to Life” as is “Death with Life”.
The court made it clear 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. This also includes the right to a dignified life up to the point of death including a dignified procedure of death.
The court, accordingly held that section 309 of IPC is not violative of Art. 21 of the constitution and finally court set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Maruti Sripati Dubai and the decision of S. C. in P. Rathinam and upheld the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court holding that section 309, IPC was not violative of Arts. 14 and 21 of constitution.
Now from foregoing discussion we come to the conclusion that, Life is regarded as a gift of God and God alone can take it.
And so attempt to commit suicide has been condemned uniformly by all religions and communities because if “Right to Die” is permitted, it would help to increase the courage of those who are in a very depressed and are in irreversible state of mind or body, without fear of any punishment should if their attempt fail.
Its effects are very bad on society, especially on younger generations. Because of immaturity of their minds in their age, they tend to act or overreact in desperate haste. Younger generation might use such right to emotionally blackmail their parents if they are failures in examination. Or sometimes they might try to commit suicide owing in frustration of love because they are then well aware of fact that no punishment should their if attempt is fail.
In Indian society, where dowry is a curse of our society. ‘Right to Die’ creates havoc because generally in cases of dowry deaths, in-laws takes the plea that the deceased has committed suicide while it is generally otherwise. How such cases could be tackled in view of “Right to Die”?
Again, suicide owing to failure to get a job or even a good job or promotion in service, or to failure in their marriage or failure to perform marital duties, etc. and would raise many social problems and so it is finally concluded that suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of right to life.
And so there is need to bringing about such a change in the function of Legislature which may be enacting suitable law providing adequate safeguard to prevent euthanasia.