Analysis of right to die with dignity in context of decriminalization of attempt to suicide under BNS

ABSTRACT

The right to die with dignity has, therefore, become one of the most contentious and dynamic legal and moral issues, especially regarding the decriminalization of suicide attempts. This research paper discusses the right to die with dignity and the legal reforms of decriminalizing suicide attempts in light of the B.N.S. It discusses how decriminalization can work towards the consideration of the sovereignty of those with terminal diseases or with unbearable suffering about matters of human dignity. The paper provides a comparative legal assessment of the legislative and judicial frameworks within the selected jurisdictions, together with the matching considerations and consequences in efforts to strike the right balance between the right to life and the state's interest in protecting life. The study also presents a consideration of the socio-legal implications of the assertion of the right to die with dignity under mental health law, medical ethics, and human rights. Last, it offers suggestions for a better and less legalistic approach to the problem, whose ultimate goal is to find a balance between the right to live and die with dignity.

KEYWORDS

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita- BNS, Indian Penal Code- IPC

INTRODUCTION

Euthanasia as the right to die has remained a topical issue globally, and more particularly, it has been a somewhat painful issue in India over several centuries concerning the plurality of religions and cultures of the population. The article of the Indian Constitution – Article 21 says that no person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except by the procedure established by law. Despite the negative tone of the wording here, the message conveyed is positive in the sense that it is in every individual’s interest to protect his or her life. It bestows on the state a responsibility for the lives of its citizens to be decent and respectable and, at the same time places on it a legal obligation. 

The Indian judiciary has been broadening the meaning of the word “Right to life” through judicial pronouncement over the years. Now this right comprises many facets, including the right to life with dignity, which includes right to food, the right to education for all, the right to clean and green environment, and the right to shelter as well as some other elements which in one or the other way, enable the individual to live a healthy life. However, a critical question arises: does it also mean that the right to life also includes the right to die with dignity? This question has therefore elicited legal, political, moral and medical issues. 

The question first arose in the case known as State of Maharashtra v. Maruty Sripati Dubal where the court first of all held that the right to die represents part of the right to life. Nevertheless, this decision was later: reversed in the subsequent judgments. 

More specifically, the right to die means the unwritten right of a person to choose to die or to have someone else bring it about deliberately. Indian Penal Code, 1860 under section 309 describe attempt to commit suicide as a criminal act which at the same time it is logical to assume that a person who tried to commit suicide has some or the other mental health issue. This criminalisation has however been subject to a lot of discussion, this eventually led to decriminalization of attempt to suicide by not including the attempt to suicide in the new BNS which is the new penal law of India. Based on the reviews of precedents and legislations, this paper will aspire to analyse the shift in the judicial approach towards right to die and attempt to suicide from a conservative to a more liberal way.

LITERATURE REVIEW

In India and worldwide, the dilemmas concerning the right to die with dignity as well as decriminalization of suicide attempts have taken on a long-standing legal and ethical propriety. The whole discussion orbits around the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which ensures that people have the right to life. An example of early case law which seemed to accept that dying is part of living includes State Of Maharashtra v. Maruty Sripati Dubal (1987) in which there was a challenge against Section 309 of IPC that criminalized attempted suicide. It was however ruled by the Supreme Court in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab that the right to live did not include the right to die, thus reinstating section 309.The Law Commission of India has been advocating for decriminalization of attempted suicide for quite a long time now because it considers this law unjust and obsolete. Its 210th Report (2008) noted how punishing people who attempt suicide amounts to “double punishment” to persons already under stress. Conversely, Mental Healthcare Act (2017) marked a significant departure from this tradition, presuming that those attempting suicide bear great emotional trauma and therefore must not be charged. This Act paved the way for rehabilitation rather than a punishment-based approach towards mental health care services.

As the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) replaced the IPC and made attempted suicide legal in 2023, reflecting the fact that globally those in anguish need assistance instead of punishment; thus, positioning India within international legal trends. In comparison, other jurisdictions like United Kingdom decriminalized suicide in 1961 but criminalized assisted suicide while on the contrary Countries like Netherlands and Belgium have legalized euthanasia for patients terminally ill. In fact, this has been confirmed by Aruna Shanbaug case (2011), where passive euthanasia was offered for patients living in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) , influencing debates surrounding the right to die. Nevertheless, as emphasized by literature there must be adequate mental health infrastructure and ethical safeguards against exploitation of vulnerable people if legal reforms are to be taken seriously. While it is a good thing that suicide has been decriminalized, mental health care needs attention to tackle the socio-legal perspectives concerning dignified death.

METHODOLOGY

This research paper uses a variety of doctrinal and comparative legal research methodologies in order to investigate the decriminalization of suicide attempts and the right to die with dignity as provided for by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in India. The study seeks to analyse legal reforms, judicial decisions and the socio-legal implications thereof through an extensive review of statutes, case law and secondary materials.

1. Doctrinal ResearchDoctrinal or black-letter law analysis is primarily what drives this research. This entails deep engagement with primary legal sources such as statutes, case law, and legal reports. Key judicial decisions including State of Maharashtra v. Maruty Sripati Dubal (1987), Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996) and Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011) are critically examined in order to chart the trajectory taken by the right to die in Indian law over time. Additionally, it takes into account suggestions made by the Law Commission of India, especially the 210th report that called for decriminalizing suicide.

2. Review Secondary DataAlso from secondary data, the research obtains academic articles, law reviews, government reports, and books. Such sources put in perspective legal issues on topics such as mental health, human rights, and medical ethics particularly regarding suicide decriminalization. By using academic interpretations and government policy reviews; manifestations of the Mental Healthcare Act (2017) indicate that suicide attempts are viewed mainly from a mental health distress perspective instead of a crime rate perspective

3. Case Law AnalysisThe paper does a critical analysis of judicial pronouncements so as to trace how they have changed their stance on euthanasia and therefore a shift in their approach towards it including cases that have become landmark decisions about balancing the right to life against the advancing notion that individuals also have a choice on how they want their lives to end i.e., dying with dignity. Approaches courts have employed are evaluated regarding these rights’ interpretations based upon three main elements namely human dignity, autonomy and state’s obligation to safeguard life.

4. Sociological PerspectiveThe research utilizes a sociological perspective to understand how broader social and mental health issues would be affected by decriminalizing suicide. It entails review of government documents; non-governmental organization reports on mental health in India and also sets up public policies geared towards reducing suicide rates in the country. On top of that, it touches on the ethical ramifications of legalizing euthanasia, basing its arguments mostly on bioethics writings as well as some perspectives in public health. The combination of doctrinal and sociological approaches as such provides a well-rounded understanding of the right to die with dignity in India and how that would play out at a global scale.

RESULTS

In India, the protection of human life is of utmost importance, with Article 21 of the Constitution being central to this principle. This article, which guarantees the right to life, has been interpreted by the courts in various cases over the years. It grants every citizen the right to life from birth, and this right cannot be taken away. However, the question of whether the right to die is included under Article 21 has been a topic of debate.

The issue first arose in the State of Maharashtra v. M.S. Dubal case, where the court ruled that the right to die falls under the right to life provided by Article 21. Following this decision, Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized attempted suicide, was struck down. The court reasoned that the desire to end one’s life, while rare, is not inherently unnatural. This ruling was also supported in the P. Rathinam v. Union of India case. However, this position was reversed in the Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab case, where a larger bench of five judges ruled that the right to die does not fall within the scope of Article 21. They argued that the right to live is a natural right, whereas the right to die is not, and therefore, it cannot be considered a natural right protected under Article 21.

The 196th report of the Indian Law Commission explored this issue in greater depth. One of the key challenges the Commission faced was whether medical treatment for terminally ill patients should be continued or withdrawn. They also addressed various other concerns, such as determining which patients are competent to make decisions, understanding what an informed decision entails, and deciding what is in the best interest of the patient. Additionally, the report considered whether the patient or their family members, or even close friends, could approach the courts to determine the legality of withholding treatment. Furthermore, it explored whether such legal decisions would be binding in future legal proceedings.

Even for cases of patients in a terminal condition and consequently the most vulnerable, the Law Commission wanted a law that would protect such patients if they decided against accepting any form of treatment, including artificial feeding. However, the legal guardians and the patient’s family must be consulted by the doctors and the final decision solely lies with doctors who must exercise their reasonable judgment after consulting other doctors by following the rules and regulations framed by the Medical Council of India. However, the treating doctor does not have the freedom of choosing any specialist of their own choice. The Law Commission also recommended that to reduce the chances of complaining about malpractice or unethical decisions, these cases should be handled by a board of experts to be appointed and accredited by a specified public body and with the approval of the government. 

Further, the Commission recommended that the doctor should state that the patient has refused the treatment, some of the issues that he or she has taken into consideration in arriving at such a decision including questioning whether or not the patient has the capacity to understand and make such decisions. The doctor is to determine whether the decision of the patient was voluntary and based on this, whether it is possible to proceed, whether it is necessary to take a break or whether treatment should be stopped. These decisions should be documented along with the rationale for each of these steps as well as the views of the specialists who were consulted, and whether the patient and his/her family had been informed of the decisions made in the patient’s best interest.  

In case the doctor’s decision is rejected by the side of the patient, then the particular family has a right to turn to the court. Incapacity means that the doctor cannot act even if he or she wishes to do so until the court has rendered the final decision. This facilitates the way through which the patient’s treatment is administered in a proper and legal manner.

CASE OF EUTHENASIA

So, let us focus on the review of the above mentioned case, which amended India’s legal position on euthanasia. In an important judgement on 7th March 2011 the supreme court held that passive elicitation was legally permissible where the patient is in Permanent Vegetative State or PVS or is practically brain dead. This case was especially important as it brought passive euthanasia in India having active euthanasia unlawful. 

 Aruna Shanbaug was working as a nurse at Mumbai based King Edward Memorial Hospital. Unfortunately, she got raped brutally and, as a result, fell into a coma for 37 years. Her friend, Pinki Virani had to move to court and petition for Aruna to be allowed to undergo euthanasia. In the light of this request, the Supreme Court on 24th January 2011 said it was forming a medical board to review the condition of the patient, Aruna. While dismissing the plea for mercy killing on March 7, 2011, the court however legalised passive euthanasia. 

The ruling of the Supreme Court categorically ruled out the active euthanasia which remains unlawful in India, but the court laid down some legal procedure for the passive euthanasia which was to remain in force till the Parliament passed some law on this subject. These guidelines were as follows:

• If for some reason, it has been decided to remove a patient on a life-support machine or any other treatment that is maintaining the patient’s life, only the patient’s next of kin, partner or someone who knows the patient very well should make that decision. The doctor who is treating the patient must always be legal and reasonable in the circumstance of the patient. 

• The second major advance was that the High Court sanction would be necessary if and when the feeding tube was to be withdrawn. This precautionary measure was put in place to unleash any exploitation for example where family members seek to be beneficiaries of the patient’s property. The case would be fully reviewed from all the angles in as much as the High Court is involved. 

• On the same note the Supreme Court also provided a procedure that the High Court should follow. This recommendation would however have to be arrived at using input from three medical experts, the final decision then being made by two judicial officers. The other thing was that the court would also hear from relatives or friends of the patient before arriving at their conclusion. 

Thus, while in Aruna Shanbaug’s case she was denied euthanasia, her example laid down a legal precedent for the Others who wanted to die a dignified death. Thus, the Supreme Court pointed to the fact that people’s decision on euthanasia must be made with dignity and with the best interest of the individuals in mind. The case created legal precedents and on July 15, 2014, the Supreme Court gave more directions in all the States of union of India and clarified the aspect of passive euthanasia making it legal. However, this case significantly shifted the dynamics for end-of-life care in India, thereby laying a good foundation for talks about human dignity and the right to die peacefully.

DECRIMINALIZATION OF SUICIDE

India has retained a number of laws from the British colonial masters long after it had gained its sovereignty in 1947. Rule established by law includes Section 309 of the Indian penal code, which prohibits attempt to commit suicide. It is also telling to note that while the British Parliament upon passing the Suicide Act in the year 1961 decriminalized attempt suicide, India chose to retain the law. The Law Commission of India took on the task of revising the IPC along with other central laws and recommended the repeal of Section 309, describing it as "harsh and unjustifiable. " Instead, they proposed a new section: In similar vein, whoever by repeated ill- treatment, -compel any member of his family living with him to commit suicide shall be liable to imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding three years and may be fined. 

 The first step on an attempt to repeal Section 309 was taken when a bill was presented to the Rajya Sabha in 1972. But unfortunately, it could not be passed in the Lok Sabha because the house got dissolved and hence the bill could not stand. Subsequently, in its 210th report, the Law Commission working on criminal law recommended complete abolition of Section 309 holding that it was ‘inhuman’. They noted that legislation enshrines the suffering and vulnerable people who want to die. They considered it as a form of “double punishment” to a person who is struggling to overcome all the challenges that life throws at him/her. 

 At last, the Mental Healthcare Act was passed in 2017 which came into force in 2018, but this restricts Section 309 in exhaustion, but did not eradicate it completely. The new law states that any person who tried to commit suicide will be assumed to have been under ‘extreme stress’ of the kind that the professional discretion should prevent criminal prosecution of the person unless it can be shown they were not. For this effect it changed the legislation that made attempted suicide a criminal act and put efforts on rehabilitation of the troubled people. Finally, after the passage of BNS, replacing the colonial era’s IPC, attempt to suicide was decriminalised in 2023.

DISCUSSION

The legal regulation of the right to die with dignity with special reference to the decriminalization of suicide attempt under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) raises some ethical, legal and societal issues. In India this debate is tied with the principles articulated in the Constitution of the country particularly, Article 21 of the Constitution of India that recognizes the right to life and personal liberty to all the citizens in the country. Thus, over the years, the Indian judiciary has amended the status of this right which means not only the right to life, but a life with dignity. This expansion encompasses simple liberties such as the liberties to food, education or even clean air. However, the critical question remains: is the right to life presupposes the right to die with dignity? 

1. Legal Authorities and Changes in the Judicial Attitude 

 The current paper focuses on the main decisions that have influenced the Indian judiciary of the right to die. While the initial case of right to die under article 21 of Indian constitution is State of Maharashtra v. Maruty Sripati Dubal which having progressive approach but contrary to it Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, where SC elaborated that the right to life also does not encompass the right to die. This stock was reversed due to the fact that life is a natural right which imposes the notion that death is not a natural right hence cannot be a counterpart of life which is protected by the constitution. 

 But with the canker of mental health, cases of terminal diseases and other related ailments, the debate was restarted. The Mental Healthcare Act in 2017 came up with a more humane approach to suicides, assuming that, the person who attempts suicides is under a lot of mental pressure and should not be punished but helped to heal. This was a shift of paradigm from the previous punitive measures formulated in the Section 309 of IPC.

2. Decriminalization of suicide and the passing of the BNS. 

 The regression culminated into the legalisation of attempted suicide through the passage of the BNS in the year 2023. The removal of the Section 309 also placed India in the right side of history and made it conform to the global standards on mental health and self-determination. The decision is a manifestation of the society across the world moving away from the earlier presumption that any person that suffers from severe mental distress should be made to suffer even more by being locked up but instead the society now recognizes that such persons should be assisted to be rehabilitated. 

Therefore, the decriminalization of suicide attempts in connection with the right to die with dignity broadens further discussions on euthanasia and assisted suicide in particular of those who suffer from terminal illness. It’s important to note that the judiciary has been rather hesitant to equate the right to die to the right to life instead, and one has to consider social, cultural, and ethical considerations. But discussion of the case of Aruna Shanbaug and, more particularly, of euthanasia, shows that the Indian legal regime is gradually moving towards the acceptance of the right to die under certain controlled circumstances. 

3. Socio-Legal Implications 

 Based on socio-legal approach one ought to mention that decriminalization effectively defends vulnerable people from the process of criminalization and recognizes the need for mental health services. The BNS itself is a step forward featured by the rejection of the colonial laws making personal decisions such as suicide a crime. The principles of the new legal framework are also less punitive and shift toward the paradigm of the rehabilitation of the convict under the recognition of the fact and nature of the problem of human dignity in the settings of suffering and autonomy in the global sphere. 

 Though the Mental Healthcare Act attempt has provided civil mental health protection for suicide attempts, it is time to widen the debate for end of life, for diseases like, terminal illness and unbearable suffering. Specifically, the paper argues that an analysis of the right to die with dignity, when examined under the lens of human rights, medical ethics, and mental health law can offer a middle ground in these issues.

4. Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide 

 It also consists of the legally and ethically liberal practices of euthanasia and assisted suicide, a portion of which the discussion is concerned. While suicide is taking decision to end one’s own life, euthanasia and assisted suicide are circumstances whereby another person assists in ending another person’s life intentionally. The Indian law as of now does put these acts into two different categories, however, euthanasia and assisted suicide are still unlawful. The paper also highlights how the courts have distinguished between these concepts in such cases as Gian Kaur and Aruna Shanbaug in which passive euthanasia was permitted under certain conditions for patients with terminal illness or in a persistent vegetative state. 

 Nevertheless, active euthanasia or assisted suicide are forbidden which still proved that the country has the tendency to protect the life of individuals and strive more on societal and ethical considerations of the society. The issues here surrounded, include consent, medical ethics and legal mandate including the duty of state to uphold life. 

5. Towards a Balanced Approach 

This debate shows that a legal-oriented approach is insufficient to address the right to die with dignity issue: there is a need to consider a humanistic approach. That the depressing turned criminal legal ban has been lifted today is good and progressive, but it is a piece in a much broader discursive map focusing on how death and suffering, self-inflicted or otherwise, and autonomy are viewed in society. The paper raises a concern as to the possibilities of having a balance of the sovereignty of an individual especially in terminal stages of an illness or unbearable suffering, invoking a type of freedom that prevents exploitation, and with dignity and care. 

Thus, the legalisation of suicide attempts under the BNS along with the current legal wrangling over euthanasia suggests that India is gradually changing for the better, at least on the issue of accepting life and death. It then only becomes easier to craft a legal regime that protects and endorses the right to die with dignity without infringing on the autonomy of patients and other human beings while also recognizing the vulnerability of some groups of patients that makes them vulnerable to being killed against their will by other people who have financial gains to gain from their deaths.

CONCLUSION 

The right to die with dignity can definitely be classed as having a multi-dimensional definition as it poses an ethical question that affects the fundamental aspects of life, death and the law. In India this problem was solved by legal actions and legal decisions which show the transition from punitive measures to more humanistic and reintegration ones. Attempted suicide is no longer a criminal offence under the BNS and therefore attempts have been made to afford vulnerable people with acknowledgement of mental health risk factors for suicidal actions. Such a shift is quite progressive and explains the tendencies existing in the world to avoid punishment and instead focus on the rehabilitation of offenders. 

The core of this discussion is contained in the conflict of two principles: the right to life enshrined under the Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and the right to die with dignity. In this respect the judiciary has been wary in its approach to tackling such issues, more notably those concerning terminal illness and intolerable suffering. Indeed, even passive euthanasia, though not explicitly prohibited by law is allowed only in certain circumstances whereas active euthanasia and assisted suicide are still unlawful because of the principle of the inviolability of life and a rational fear of tyranny of powerful organizations. 

The paper has also discussed the socio-legal impact of these legal changes while advocating for a proper liberal balance that will uphold human autonomy as well as protect the vulnerable. In the future, there is a need by various legal, medical and societal bodies to enhance an inclusive dialogue as they address the needs of those facing end-of-life solutions with dignity. This article believes it is good that the law has remained sensitive to the issue of suicide attempts and called for further modifications in law and more importantly ethical consideration to do justice to the recognition of right to die with dignity in a humane manner.

AUTHOR:

AVLOKIT YADAV

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA, NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY