The article has been written by Nikhilesh Koundinya a student of Symbiosis Law School, Pune. In this article, he has spoken about the concept of euthanasia. Furthermore, he has discussed the decisions taken by the Indian judiciary with regards to this practice. He has gone onto to the law commission report and provides suggestions for the practice. He would like to thank Grishma Mahatme for her support on this article. 


Every human being has a right to live a desirous and happy healthy life until he dies. This is a fundamental right that is even guaranteed by the constitution in Article 21. But sometimes the person may not want to live the years granted to him/her and would want to end his life voluntarily. This way of ending life is considered to be unnatural and the person committing the act is termed as someone who has a mental problem or abnormality. There are two ways in which a person can end his/her life. One way is by killing oneself by committing acts which will lead to death eventually. There are many ways such as shooting yourself, hanging yourself or consuming substances which may cause death and many others. This action of a person is predominantly categorised as “suicide”. 

But there is another way by which a person can end his life which is requesting someone else to take his life. This under the law is categorised as “Euthanasia” or in layman’s term as “mercy killing”. The context of how India and other countries have dealt with this phenomenon will be addressed in the paper but first, we must observe the origins of this practice. 

The term euthanasia was derived from the Greek word “eu” and “Thanatos” which means “good death” or “easy death”. Euthanasia or mercy killing is an act of painlessly putting one’s life to death who is suffering from extreme pain and incurable disease by withholding treatment or withdrawing artificial life support measures. Euthanasia was first legalized in Holland, Netherlands in the year 2008.

According to the Black’s Law Dictionary (8th edition), euthanasia means the act or practise of killing or bringing about the death of a person who suffers from an incurable disease or condition, esp. a painful one, for reasons of mercy. 

The understanding of the definition provides us with the rationale of committing the act of euthanasia. The practice is limited to doctors taking their patient’s life when requested to avoid the irresistible pain and terminal illness. Therefore, the rationale is that a patient can be killed today rather than having ongoing pain for years to come. 


  1. Active or Positive– In this kind of practice the person directs somebody else to take his life. This is essentially the patient making a request to be dead. Since the patient suffering makes the request for death from the doctor this is covered as active euthanasia as the patient plays an active role. 
  2. Passive or Negative- Passive euthanasia as a practice differs from active euthanasia as this process is affected by omission of a person to do something. So the doctor may not administer certain medicines he should have or will remove the support which he should have which will lead to the person’s death. Hence in this practice the result of death is not promulgated by the patient but due to the intentional omission on part of the doctor or any other person. 
  3. Voluntary– The most important term under this ambit would refer to willingness to die and consenting to die. This means that a person who is conscious and can make a decision states that he wants to be killed and this will classify as active euthanasia. 
  4. Involuntary– This kind of euthanasia may also amount to an offence under criminal law. If a doctor without taking consent of the patient who is fully conscious to take the decision kills him, it would classify as murder. But the offence would represent the concept of involuntary euthanasia. 
  5. Non-voluntary– If a patient is fully incapacitated and isn’t conscious enough to tell his wish and is undergoing a lot of pain, a close family member can make the call to relieve that person from the pain and provide for euthanasia to be performed and this will also classify as passive euthanasia as even in this case the doctors may remove the life support which would lead the person to die. 

There are various ways for performing the practice of euthanasia and the most popular ones are: –

  1. Lethal Injection– Injection of a lethal dose of a drug, such as a known poison, KCl, etc.
  2. Asphyxiation– The most popular gas used is Carbon monoxide (CO). Nerve gases like sarin & tabun etc. are also added in small amounts to fully ensure death.


The practice of euthanasia was not recognised for a long time in the Indian scenario. But then the landmark judgement of the supreme court came about which was called “Aruna Shanbuag v Union of India”. The facts of the case are as follows: 

  1. The Aruna Shanbuag was a nurse in King Edward Memorial Hospital located in Mumbai in the Parel area. On 27th November 1973 when she was changing clothes in the basement a sweeper named Sohanlal tries to molest and sexually assault her but when he failed to do so he strangled her with a chain and sodomized. 
  2. The perpetrator was later tracked and was sentenced to jail but the case of rape was never filed due to the lack of police investigation. Thus, the mention of sexual assault and anal rape wasn’t presented in the court. 
  3. When the incident took place, the court observed that due to strangling of the neck with a metallic chain the oxygen to the body did not pass and thus she was left in a vegetative state ever since. After the incident she was taken to KEM hospital for treatment and was kept alive using a feeding tube. 
  4. Pinky Virani who was a social activist wanted to help her and thus instituted a case in the Supreme court to end the life of Aruna because she was in a vegetative state and this violated her fundamental right to live a life with dignity. The court rejected the petition as the court realised that the doctors and the staff working with Aruna did not want to take her life. Thus, the court while rejecting the petition allowed the practice of passive euthanasia in India. 
  5. Aruna died of pneumonia in 2015 being in a coma and vegetative state for the past 42 years. 
  6. The judgement was considered to be against the fundamental right under article 21 which is right to life and thus in a case in 2014 the court directed the decision of passive euthanasia to be reheard under a constitution bench. 
  7. The government in the same year on 23rd December 2014 the government stated that it agrees with the decision of the Supreme court with regards to passive euthanasia and because the guidelines have already been issued by the Supreme court they would be followed.


Euthanasia has not been completely legalized in the Indian subcontinent. Only the concept of passive euthanasia has found support from the court and from the law makers. There have been various decisions passed in relation to euthanasia under Indian law: 

  1. State of Maharashtra v Maruty Shripati Dubal– In this case, the main contention raised was the fact section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is violative of articles 19 and 21 of the constitution. The court held that this section would be scrapped and held that there is nothing illegal in trying to end one’s life. In fact, when article 21 of the constitution gives a right to live it must also give a right to die. The court held that though it is abnormal to end one’s life yet it is not illegal to do it. 
  2. Gian Kaur v State of Punjab– In this case, the court held that a person who is terminally ill or is in a constant vegetative state is not being killed and nobody is infringing on his right to life whereas we are only accelerating the process of death so that the person doesn’t undergo untoward pain. 
  3. In the case of Airedale NHS Trust v Bland for the first time right to die was allowed in English law system where life support services were cut out for the patient. This case was a landmark case because it gave powers to the judiciary to decide what to do and when to allow passive euthanasia after judging and coming to a conclusion on the patient’s state. 
  4. In the case of Mckay v Bergsted the court for the patient and state interest removed the breathing system from the patient’s mouth. Thus, even in this case, the patient’s interest was taken into consideration. 


After the Aruna case there were several guidelines issued by the Supreme court in relation to what steps are to be followed to conduct the procedure of passive euthanasia:

  1. First of all, for the process of euthanasia to be administered the high court must allow the practice only after observing that the due procedure has been followed. 
  2. Whenever a petition is raised for the grant of passive euthanasia for a person who is terminally ill or in a vegetative state the chief justice of the high court will appoint two judges to loom into the matter presented before the court and then take a decision on whether to approve or disregard the petition. 
  3. Before arriving at the decision, the two-judge bench must consult with at least three doctors to know the exact repercussions of their decision and also the patient’s present state and the hope for recovery. In the meantime, a letter will also be issued to the close relatives of the patient and a copy of the doctor’s report will be made available to them as soon as the report is completed. On the basis of all this the high court will make a decision regarding the person’s request. 


The law commission of India had recommended few changes with regards to the law related to suicide where suicide should not be looked like an offence but it should rather be defined as a disease and required treatment should be provided to the concerned person. Furthermore, it had also recommended repealing section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Accordingly, keeping these factors in mind, the Law Commission of India in one of its report has laid down certain necessary guidelines which should be considered.

Latest Posts


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *