Abstract

The case of Common Cause v. Union of India is a significant case in the light of ever evolving jurisprudence of Article 21. The case builds upon the jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011) where the Court grappled with the question of legalisation of euthanasia in India. In Aruna Shaunbag’s judgment, the Court pointed out that in the case of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab , a view was taken that while life encapsulates a gamut of rights under it, the right to die was expressly excluded from the purview of life. It was further stated that nothing more can be construed from Gian Kaur’s case and the ratio did not aid the court in coming to a conclusion in Aruna Shaunbag’s case. Aruna Shanbaug’s case is a significant judgment as it legalised passive euthanasia for the first time. The Supreme Court also made a distinction between active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is where positive steps are taken to accelerate the end of a person’s life. Passive euthanasia is where the life support is withdrawn from the patients whose onset of death has already begun. It has been held by the Supreme Court that active euthanasia remains criminal and can be legalised only through a legislation by the Parliament.While passive euthanasia was legalised through the judgment of the court, the extent and expanse of this right remained unclear. In Common Cause v Union of India, the Court widened the ambit of Article 21 by stating that Right to Life includes Right to die with dignity and laid down the guidelines for streamlining the process of passive euthanasia.

Keywords