The Jurisprudence of Dignity: A Comprehensive Analysisof Passive Euthanasia in India
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37591/ijhml.v9i1.2046Keywords:
Passive Euthanasia, Right to Die with Dignity, Article 21, Advance Medical Directives, Living Will, Permanent Vegetative State, Aruna Shanbaug, Common Cause, Patient Autonomy, Clinically Assisted NutritionAbstract
This paper undertakes a comprehensive examination of passive euthanasia within the Indian legal framework, tracing its evolution from a legally prohibited act to a constitutionally recognized right embedded in the dignity of the individual. The study investigates the doctrinal shift from the “sanctity of life” principle to the “right to die with dignity” as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Through a systematic analysis of landmark judicial pronouncements – from the international precedents set by Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland (1993) and Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990), to the transformative Indian judgments of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011), Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India (2018), and the recent Harish Rana v. Union of India (2026) – this paper traces the jurisprudential journey that has shaped end-of-life medical decision-making in India. The paper critically evaluates the procedural evolution of Advance Medical Directives (Living Wills), examining how the Supreme Court progressively simplified
bureaucratic requirements to make this constitutional right practically accessible. Particular attention is paid to the 2023 refinements that replaced magisterial countersignatures with notarial attestation and integrated Living Wills into the National Health Digital Record. The 2026 Harish Rana case is analyzed as the first real-world application of these simplified guidelines, establishing that passive euthanasia encompasses withdrawal of Clinically Assisted Nutrition, not merely mechanical ventilation. The paper further identifies persistent challenges: the absence of dedicated legislative codification in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the risk of economic coercion in healthcare decision-making, and the subjective medical determination of “irreversibility.” The study concludes that while India has made remarkable strides in aligning its medical jurisprudence with constitutional values of autonomy and dignity, the urgent need remains for a comprehensive Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patients Act to consolidate these judicially crafted protections into enforceable statutory law.
References
1. Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789 (HL, UK).
2. Cruzan v Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 US 261 (1990) (Supreme Court of the United States).
3. Gian Kaur v State of Punjab (1996) 2 SCC 648 (Supreme Court of India).
4. Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v Union of India (2011) 4 SCC 454 (Supreme Court of India).
5. Common Cause (A Regd Society) v Union of India (2018) 5 SCC 1 (Supreme Court of India, Constitution Bench).
6. Common Cause (A Regd Society) v Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 215 of 2005 (Order dated Jan 2023, Supreme Court of India).
7. Harish Rana v Union of India (2026) (Supreme Court of India, March 2026).
8. Dworkin R. Life’s Dominion: An Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom. New York: Knopf; 1993.
9. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 8th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2019.
10. Law Commission of India. Report No. 196: Medical Treatment to Terminally Ill Patients (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners). New Delhi: Government of India; 2006.
