Right to Die in India with Special Reference to Human Rights

The discussion of euthanasia (voluntarily assisted suicide) and the applicability of International human rights standards to that discussion are analyzed in the current research. One of the most challenging concerns for human rights is euthanasia because of its complicated ethical, legal, medical, and religious implications. Life may be challenging at times, but it remains a wonderful gift. Many people believe that we, as humans, should not have the ability to choose when we die or when we are born. However, other individuals believe that enduring a life of unhappiness is an obligation that we ought to let to terminate respectfully and peacefully. It is possible to legalize euthanasia, but only in specific situations. Each situation will require careful monitoring while taking the views of the patient, the relatives and the doctors, viewpoints into account. It will be fascinating to see how Indian culture reacts to this, as it is genuinely a life-or-death issue. In truth, a limited number of jurisdictions have established laws permitting voluntary euthanasia, and domestic courts in other nations are frequently asked to decide whether the interests at issue in reference to the right to die should be recognized. The practice of euthanasia has generated a lot of debate around the world. Latest occurrence in the Netherlands and England, where euthanasia is legal, make this argument more important than ever. As a result, many countries around the world are now debating whether to follow the Dutch model. In the recent Aruna Shanbaug case, our Supreme Court upheld passive euthanasia in India. The aim of the Research paper is an in-depth analysis of the need for euthanasia in India and the legal framework to support the right to die with dignity.

• human rights
• passive euthanasia
• right to die
• voluntary euthanasia
• vegetative state

• Mr. Vibhanshu, LL.M., Faculty of Law, Aligarh Muslim University

Vibhanshu. (December 2023). Right to Die in India with Special Reference to Human Rights. IPEM LAW JOURNAL, 7, 76-90.

1. 1.18th Law Commission Report (Report no. 210)Airedale N.H.S. Trust v. Blandm (1993)Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v Union of India (2011)Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. DilipkumarRaghavendranath Nadkarni and others (1983)Chenna Jagdeshwar v Sate of AP (1988)Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v Union of India (2015)Dying for care : hospice care or euthanasia : Van Bommel, Harry : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. (1992). Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/dyingforcarehosp0000vanb.Gian Kaur v State of Punjab (1996)Justice K.S. Puttaswammy v Union of India (2017)Maharashtra v Maruti Sripati Dubal (1987)Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another (1978) Rathinam v Union of India (1994)Reeves v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2000)State of Maharashtra v. Maruti Sripati Dubal (1997)
2. 2.18th Law Commission Report (Report no. 210)
3. 3.Airedale N.H.S. Trust v. Blandm (1993)
4. 4.Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v Union of India (2011)
5. 5.Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. DilipkumarRaghavendranath Nadkarni and others (1983)
6. 6.Chenna Jagdeshwar v Sate of AP (1988)
7. 7.Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v Union of India (2015)
8. 8.Dying for care : hospice care or euthanasia : Van Bommel, Harry : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. (1992). Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/dyingforcarehosp0000vanb.
9. 9.Gian Kaur v State of Punjab (1996)
10. 10.Justice K.S. Puttaswammy v Union of India (2017)
11. 11.Maharashtra v Maruti Sripati Dubal (1987)
12. 12.Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another (1978)
13. 13.Rathinam v Union of India (1994)
14. 14.Reeves v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2000)
15. 15.State of Maharashtra v. Maruti Sripati Dubal (1997)