Euthanasia – The Present Scenario In India

In this blog post, Soumya Deshawar, a student of the University of Petroleum and Energy Studies analyzes on the much-debated issue of  “Euthanasia and its current status in India”. The blog post consists of the present scenario of Euthanasia in India and further elaborates the different types of euthanasia. It further describes the topic in terms of the reports by the Law Commission of India and concludes by providing the relevancy of Euthanasia worldwide.


“Marte hain arzoomeinmarneki,Mautaatihai par nahinaati” – Mirza Ghalib 

“I’m not afraid of being dead. I’m just afraid of what you might have to go through to get there.” – Pamela Bone




When a person terminates his life by his own act, it is referred to as “suicide”. To end the life of a person by a request of others or on the request of the deceased is known as “euthanasia” or in a simpler form, “mercy killing.”

Euthanasia has five different classifications, and also there are numerous ways of its application. The Supreme Court, in the case of Aruna Shanbaug, has already given its verdict on this point but still some doubts arise, which need to be analyzed with due care.

When the patient explicitly requests for euthanasia, it is referred to as voluntary euthanasia. Governments of many countries have rendered this form as legal, and if not legal, they have decriminalized it. It is considered as homicide by few countries, but if the doctor fulfills some legal requirements, it is not regarded as a criminal homicide, and such a person won’t be prosecuted.

When a person is incapable of giving consent as to the procedure of euthanasia, in such cases where he/she is unconscious, legally incompetent, or comatose, then in such a case, it is referred to as non-voluntary euthanasia. Non-voluntary euthanasia can even be in the cases where previously a patient has declared his will t die but, presently he/she is unable to do so. Euthanasia is internationally illegal in the case of children, as they are not competent to contracts. It might be accepted in certain exceptional circumstances.

The confusion of non-voluntary euthanasia being similar to involuntary euthanasia persists at times. In the case of non-voluntary euthanasia, the patient’s consent cannot be drawn, whereas, in the case of involuntary euthanasia, the act is carried out against the will of the patient.

Talking regarding procedural distinctions, euthanasia can be divided into two broad categories: Active Euthanasia and Passive Euthanasia. The act of forcefully killing a person who is in a vegetative state, and his/her condition can’t be made any better is known as active euthanasia. In this type, lethal substances, etc., are used for the killing of such a patient. Whereas, in Passive Euthanasia, the source on which the person is dependent for life is removed so that he/she may die eventually.

Euthanasia is primarily associated with the people who have some terminal illness, or who are disabled and don’t wish to continue suffering through rest of their life. A person who is severely handicapped or is terminally ill should be given the right to choose whether he wants to live or not.



Legal Aspects of Euthansia in India

India has amalgamated its constitution by referring to the recommend of various other countries, and the courts have been from time to time referring to numerous foreign decisions.

In India, euthanasia is undeniably illegal. In most of the instances of euthanasia or mercy killing, there is always an intention on the part of the doctor to kill the patient. Thus, such cases would plainly fall under Section 300, clause one of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Conversely, as in such cases, if there is the lawful consent of the departed, then, Exception 5 to the stated Section would be engrossed. The doctor or any mercy killer would be liable to punishment under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for the culpable homicide, not amounting to murder. But this exception is applicable only in cases of voluntary euthanasia (where the patient consents to death). The cases of involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia would be canceled out by the first proviso to Section 92 of the IPC, which talks about “Medical Negligence” and thus is considered illegal.

The advisability of permitting euthanasia is one of the passionately debated issues in many countries including India. Euthanasia can be active or passive. The former involves doing something to hasten the death of a person. Unless expressly permitted by law, it is clearly a crime and is treated as a crime in most of the countries. Passive euthanasia, on another hand, involves refusing to do something to (or “intending to”) keep the person alive. This is understood that in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court, while holding that right to life did not include the right to die, did not categorically rule out the permissibility of passive euthanasia. Either variety of euthanasia is sought to be justified in the case of a person who is terminally ill since a long period of time, and all hopes of his recovery are ruled out. In most cases, the patients are found to have lost their consciousness and their life is prolonged quite often by artificial means. It is argued, that it is better to let such a person die so that he gets relieved of misery and pain in a dignified way.

In the immediate case, Aruna Ramchandra was found to be living in a permanent vegetative state though her brain was found to be functioning a little. She had no relations and was being taken care of by the KEM hospital staff in Mumbai where she had been working as anurse earlier. The hospital staff was emotionally attached to her and did not want her to be left to die. The care taken by the staff was found to be marvelous. A social activist had moved the Court, but it was held that she did not have a locus standing in the matter. However, the case led a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra, JJ. to give deep consideration to the whole issue of permitting euthanasia.

The bench ruled out active euthanasia but held that passive euthanasia may be allowed in suitable cases subject to certain precautions. If the patient is conscious his/her own wishes have to be taken into account. On the other hand, if the patient is in coma, the wishes of near relatives (spouse, parents, children andothers) have to be taken into account. In case no near relation is available or is forthcoming the next friend, as in the present case the KEM hospital staff can take the initiative. Then the matter has to go to the High Court, and a bench of at least two judges have to make the decision. The bench is to constitute a team of three competent doctors to examine the patient. In addition, the bench should also ascertain the views of the State and the near relations of the patient. The Supreme Court ruled that this procedure should be followed until Parliament had legislated on the matter.

Justice P.B. Sawant: “If the purpose of the prescribed punishment is to prevent prospective suicides by deterrence, it ‘s hard to understand how the same can be achieved by punishing those who have made the attempts. Those who make the suicide attempt on account of mental disorder requires psychiatric treatment and not confinement in the prison cells where their condition is bound to worsen leading to further mental derangement. Those on the other hand, who make a suicide attempt on account of actual physical ailments, incurable disease, torture (broken down by illness), and deceit physical state induced by old age or disablement, need nursing home and not prison to prevent them from making the attempts again. No deterrence is going to hold back those who want to die for a special or political cause or to leave the world either because of the loss of interest in life or for self- deliverance. Thus in no case does the punishment serve the purpose and in some cases it is bound to prove self-defeating and counter-productive.[1]

The Union Government of India has given a decision to decriminalize suicide. It is to be noted that all the cases under Section 309, which denotes suicide as a crime, are disorganized, often screening the crime of abetment to murder.



Aruna’s Case– A New Dimension in the Indian Legal Context

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court in the case of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, unlocked the gateway for validation of passive euthanasia.

The  Court dismissed the petition filed on   behalf of Aruna Shanbaug  and observed that passive euthanasia was permissible under the supervision of law in an extraordinary circumstance but active euthanasia was still not permitted under the law. The Court also suggested decriminalizing the attempt to suicide by repealing the punishment provided in Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code.

[The Court in this connection has laid down the guidelines which will continue to be the law until Parliament makes a law on this point.
  1. A decision has to be taken to discontinue life support either by the parents or the spouse or other close relatives, or in the absence of any of them, such a decision can be taken even by a person or a body of persons acting as a next friend. It can also be made by the doctors attending the patient. However, the decision should be made bona fide in the best interest of the patient.
  2. Even if a decision is taken by the near relatives or doctors or next friend to withdraw life support, such a decision requires approval from the High Court concerned.
  3. When such an application is filled, the Chief Justice of the High Court should forthwith constitute a Bench of at least two Judges who should decide to grant approval or not. A committee of three reputed doctors to be nominated by the Bench, who will give a report regarding the condition of the patient. Before giving the verdict, a notice regarding the report should be given to the close relatives and the State. After hearing the parties, the High Court can give its verdict.[2]




Law Commission of India and It’s Recommendations 

The Commission has given the following recommendations.

  1. Obviously, the first thing which is to be declared is that each ‘competent patient’, who has been suffering from deadly illness has a the right to refuse any medical treatment or the beginning or continuance of such a treatment that has already been initiated. If such an informed decision is endorsed by the competent patient, it is compulsory for the doctor. Consequently, the doctor must be content that a competent patient makes the decision and it is an informed decision. Such informed decision must be the one taken by a competent patient autonomously.

It must also be cleared that the doctor, notwithstanding the concealment or withdrawal of treatment, is eligible to manage palliative care for the incompetent patient if only he is conscious and also to the competent patient who has declined medical treatment.

  1. It proposed to provide that the doctor shall not be entitled to withhold or withdraw treatment except in a case where he has gained opinion of a body of three skilled medical practitioners from a panel prepared by an Authority of High Status. It also   proposed another significant caution, namely, that the decision to hold back or withdraw must be grounded on guidelines   issued   by   the   Medical   Council   of   India as   to the conditions under which medical treatment in respect of the specific illness or disease, could be withdrawn or withheld.

In addition, it is proposed that, a Register shall be maintained by the doctorswho recommendthe withholding or withdrawing of the treatment, in the case of competent as well as incompetent patients. The conclusion as well as the decision-making procedure must be noted in the Register.



Draft Bill and It’s Contents

The Draft Bill, which was proposed in the 241st report of Law Commission, deals with the subject of passive euthanasia and will of living, a deed in which a person states his or her wish to have or not to have extraordinary life extending measures used when recovery from the disease is not possible. If accepted, the Medical Council of India (MCI) will have an active part in the law. The MCI would formulate and issue strategies for medical experts in the matter of withholding or withdrawing the medical treatment to a competent or an incompetent patient suffering from an illness that is terminal and cannot be treated.




In our general public, the palliative consideration and personal satisfaction issues in patients with terminal ailments like propelled growth and AIDS have turned into an imperative sympathy toward clinicians. Parallel to this worry has emerged another questionable issue-willful extermination or “leniency –killing” of at death’s door patients.
Defenders of doctor helped suicide (PAS) feel that an individual’s entitlement to self-sufficiency naturally qualifies him for pick an easy demise. The rivals feel that a doctor’s part in the demise of an individual disregards the focal principle of the medicinal calling. In addition, undiscovered melancholy and the probability of social “intimidation” in individuals requesting deliberate extermination, put a further question mark on the moral standards hidden such a demonstration. These worries have prompted strict rules for executing PAS. Evaluation of the mental condition of the individual consenting to PAS gets to be required and here, the part of the specialist gets to be essential. Albeit considered illicit in our nation; PAS has a few backers as willful associations like “demise with nobility” establishment. This has a fillip in the late Honorable Supreme Court Judgment in the Aruna Shaunbag case. What stays to be seen is to what extent it takes before this touchy issue rattles the Indian governing body.

After the court managing, The Telegraph counseled with Muslim, Hindu, Jain and Christian religious pioneers. Despite the fact that by and large against authorizing killing, Christians, and the Jains thought aloof willful extermination was satisfactory under a few circumstances. Jains and Hindus have the customary ceremonies Santhara and Prayopavesa individually, wherein one can end one’s life by starvation when one feels their life is finished. A few individuals from India’s therapeutic foundation were doubtful about killing because of the nation’s feeble principle of law and the expansive crevice between the rich and poor people, which may prompt the misuse of the elderly by their families.




[1] Ibid, para 20

[2]ArunaShanbaugvs. Union of India

Rebecca Furtado :