People with time started to realize why death is the ultimate destiny, the inevitable truth. As time passed mental depression, suicides, incurable illnesses, etc became common and people started to accept the idea of Euthanasia. Euthanasia is ending one’s life willfully to end suffering and pain. Euthanasia has been a controversial topic for a while now, different countries have different laws for it. Euthanasia can be categorized into different categories
1. Voluntary
Voluntary Euthanasia is when a person willingly wants to end his life. It is even legal in some countries like Belgium, Canada, Netherlands and Luxembourg.
● Active Euthanasia
Active Euthanasia simply means killing a patient with active means, for example, injecting a patient with something lethal, it is also termed “Aggressive euthanasia”.
● Passive euthanasia
Passive euthanasia is less aggressive as compared to active euthanasia, under passive euthanasia we simply withdraw a terminally ill patient of his/her life support and leave them to die.
2. Non-voluntary
Non-Voluntary Euthanasia is when consent is not available, but Non-voluntary Euthanasia is only allowed under limited conditions, otherwise may be considered murder.
EUTHANASIA IN INDIA
Killing one’s self is not defined anywhere in the IPC however Section 306 of the IPC talks about the abetment of suicide. Whoever abets a person in the act of commission of suicide shall be punished with imprisonment and Section 309 of IPC talk about the attempt of suicide, it says if a person is found to attempt to commit suicide shall be punished with simple imprisonment.
According to NCRB (National Crime Records Bureau), a total of 1,53,052 Suicides were reported in the country in 2020, which means an increase of 10% when compared to records of 2019. The power of the state to punish a man attempting suicide under Section 309 is questioned on the grounds of morality, To build up the courage to commit suicide and end one’s own life it is assumed that a person is under immense mental pressure or depression, So is it morally right to punish a man who is already suffering so much mentally, not only that it can be questioned constitutionally to as article 21 gives us the right to live our life on our terms, so this is a controversial dilemma.
In P. Rathinam vs Union of India (1994), the constitutional validity of section 309 was challenged and the court held that just as the right to freedom of speech included the Right not to speak similar to this Right to Life under Article 21 also included the Right not to live holding section 309 unconstitutional.
In Gian Kaur vs the State of Punjab (1996) Gian Kaur and her husband Harbans Singh were held liable for abetting the suicide of Ms Kulwant Kaur. The interpretation given in P. Rathinam was rejected here as the right to life is a natural process whereas on the other hand, suicide is not natural and requires an unnatural act.
The Right to Death under Article 21 was rejected.
Supreme Court passed a historic verdict in 2011 legalizing “Passive Euthanasia” in Aruna Shanbaug’s case. Though the plea for Aruna Shanbaug’s Euthanasia was rejected, the court laid down guidelines for “Passive Euthanasia”.
● The decision for Euthanasia has to be taken by the spouse or parent and in the absence of any of them close relatives or the doctors in the interest of the patient.
● Such a decision requires the approval of the court before anyone takes the decision.
● When an application is filed seeking approval for euthanasia the Chief Justice should constitute a two-judge bench that will decide whether to approve or not
● A committee of three reputed doctors chosen by the judges, will report regarding the condition of the patient before approval. A notice will be given to the nearest relatives
● After hearing both parties, the judges will give their approval
In Common Cause Vs Union of India,(2018), the Supreme Court passed a landmark judgement and held that the right to life with dignity does include the right to die and refuse treatment and introduced a living will, a person can write a living will in his normal state for the future that allows the doctors to withdraw the “life support”. The court said a person who has no will to live should not suffer in a vegetative state.
The court further stated that the guidelines will remain the same until legislation is passed to deal with the issue.
These cases opened the way for Euthanasia in India and Indian legislator is keen on bringing an act to deal with Euthanasia but when tested with Article 21 (Right to live). The debate starts, and till then we stick with judgments and guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court of India regarding Passive Euthanasia.
EUTHANASIA AROUND THE WORLD
The legality of Euthanasia varies in different countries. In Argentina, it is a law that a person who is dependent on life support or is in a vegetative state can reject treatment and get his life support withdrawn after giving consent, consent can also be given by a close relative. In the USA, Active Euthanasia is strictly prohibited but citizens have the right to withdraw life support and reject treatment, by their consent and in case a patient is not in the state to give consent a close relative can give consent on his behalf. In Turkey, Euthanasia is prohibited and is an offence, and a person who aids in such an act is punished as if he committed murder. Russia has also prohibited Euthanasia but back in 1922, it was allowed in Soviet Russia.
Every country has different laws and opinions on Euthanasia or Compassionate Homicide.
CONCLUSION
Euthanasia, mercy killing, compassionate killing, etc, no matter how beautifully we name it, doesn’t change the fact that we are killing a person who will live. In a way we are abetting murder by instigating merely giving out ideas like euthanasia is abetting suicide, We humans get healthcare, exercise, eat good food, etc in the hope that it increases our life span and improves our body functions. We humans have a survival instinct, Hope is the only thing that keeps us alive in the worst of situations; even if a person is terminally ill maybe he/she still has a will inside to live. I believe Euthanasia is killing a person’s hope and propagating such ideas is normalizing the fashion of suicide and the diminishing idea of being willing to live. In a greater way, it can affect a person’s psycho-emotional balance and lead to fatal consequences.
The writer is a law student at the Dogra Law College, University of Jammu, and can be reached at [email protected]

S Arishpreet Singh