Gian Kaur v State of Punjab

IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

1996 AIR 946, 1996 SCC (2) 648

PETITIONER
GIAN KAUR
RESPONDENT
THE STATE OF PUNJAB

BENCH
J.S. Verma, G.N. Ray, N.P. Singh, Faizan Uddin, and G.T. Nanavati JJ.

Submitted by- Dhirendra Singh Yadav

11717234
B.A.LL.B (3rd year)
 INTRODUCTION

The issue of suicide raises many fundamental questions about the very nature of liberty. The
temptation to indulge oneself in jurisprudential debate is very strong. However, the only real
basis for determining the validity or otherwise of criminalizing suicide is the Constitution.

The genesis of the debate is in the 42nd Law Commission Report, 1971, which recommended
that S. 309 1 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 be repealed. This was followed by the decisions in
State v. Sanjay Kumar3 and Court on its own motion v. Yogesh Sharna,4 where the court
observed that S. 309 I.P.C. is anachronistic. The constitutionality of the provision was assailed in
two High courts which came to different conclusions. The High Court of Bombay in Maruti
Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra5 held that S. 309, I.P.C. was held to be violative of Art.
14 and Art. 21. Art. 14 was held to be violated as S. 309, I.P.C. is discriminatory in nature and
arbitrary. Art. 21 was construed to include the "right to die", making S. 309, I.P.C. invalid.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chenna Jagadeeshwar & Anr. v. State6 held that S. 309 of
the I.P.C. is not violative of the constitution. The argument that there is a right to die in Art. 21
was rejected. The court held that S. 309 I.P.C. is not violative of Art. 14 as the courts have
sufficient power to mitigate harsh punishment.

This debate seemed to have ended with P. Rathinam/N. Patnaik v. Union of India7 where the
Supreme Court held that S. 309, I.P.C. is violative of Art, 21 of the Constitution, as there exists
under Ar . 21 a "right to die". The court however rejected the contention that Art. 14 is \riolated
on the ground that there was sentencing discretion. The question has been reopened in Srt. Gian
Kaur v. Punjab.8 The appellants in this case were convicted under S. 306 I.P.C.;9 in appeal, it
was contended that abetment of suicide cannot be a crime as it only amounts to assisting another
person assert a fundamental right. Thus, S. 306 I.P.C. is equally violative of Art. 21, was the
contention. The entire question including the validity of the decision in Rathinam came to be
referred to a Constitution Bench, given the difficulties In holding S. 306 also invalid.
 BRIEF FACTS

In the instant case, Gian Kaur and her husband Harbans Singh, being the appellants had
committed the offence of abetment to suicide of their daughter-in-law, Kulwant Kaur. For their
action, the Trial Court convicted them both under Section 306 of The Indian Penal Code.
Henceforth, they were sentenced to Rigorous imprisonment for a term of six years each and were
liable to pay the fine amount of Rs. 2,000/-, or, in default of paying the specified fine amount,
further Rigorous Imprisonment for nine months would be enforced. Furthermore, the appellants
made an appeal at the High Court, who reiterated the Lower Court’s decision making the
conviction of the appellants right. However, the sentence of Gian Kaur alone has been reduced
from six years to Rigorous Imprisonment for three years. Through the Special Leave Petition, the
Appellants have approached the Supreme Court against their conviction sentence under Section
306 of IPC.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is constitutionally valid?
Whether Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 violates Article 14 and 21 of the
Constitution?
 ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF PETITIONER

The Petitioners contended that the Lower Court’s judgment is erroneous in nature. They strongly
alleged that there was no abetment for attempt to suicide by Kulwant Kaur. The appellant had
approached the High Court wanting to get rid of the said allegation. Their contention was that
Section 306 of IPC must be held constitutionally invalid with reference to the case of P.
Rathinam v. Union of India[1], which declared Section 309 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 as
unconstitutional as it is violative of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

It was held in P. Rathinam case that `right to die’ falls within the ambit of Article 21 of the
Constitution, and any person assisting the enforcement of the `right to die’ is merely assisting the
enforcement of  Article 21, which is the fundamental right under Article 21 and it cannot be
penal. Hence, it was contended by the Petitioners that Section 306 of IPC, which makes that act
punishable, therefore, is violative of Article 21. One of the counsels who appeared for the
petitioners contended that Section 309 of IPC is unconstitutional since it is violative of Article 14
of the Constitution on the grounds that the provision is discriminative, arbitrary, barbaric and
monstrous.

ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

The Respondents being the state, wanted the decision of the Trial Court and the High Court to be
upheld by the Apex Court. They strongly contended that Section 306 of The Indian Penal Code,
1860 which talks about the abetment of attempt to suicide is an independent provision, hence it
does not rely on Section 309 of the same act. Moreover, Section 306 is constitutionally valid and
does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Respondents also wanted the ruling of the case P. Rathinam v. Union of India to be struck
down since Section 309 of IPC is also constitutionally valid. They contended that the ‘right to
life’ is inherently inconsistent with the ‘right to die’ and the right to die cannot fall within the
ambit of Article 21. The Respondents contended that there is no merit in the contention-based on
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
 JUDGEMENT

The five-judge Constitutional Bench had held that “Right to Life” under Article 21 of Indian
Constitution does not include the “Right to Die” or “right to be killed”. The Apex Court asserts
that ‘Right to life” also includes the right to a dignified life till one reaches the point of death,
including a dignified procedure of death, thus it includes the right of a dying man to also die with
dignity when his life is ebbing out.
The Court ensured that the “Right to die” with dignity at the end of an individual’s life must not
be misunderstood with the “Right to die” in an unnatural manner of death. It was mentioned that
accelerating the process of natural death of an individual which by god’s creation are imminent
in nature, under such circumstances permitting termination of life is not available for
interpretation under Article 21 to therein include the right to curtail an individual’s natural span
of life. Henceforth, the contention of the Appellants on making Section 309 of The Indian Penal
Code to be unconstitutional, since they violated Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be
accepted. Moreover, the Court, rejected the petitioner’s contention of challenging the
constitutional validity of Section 309 based on Article 14.
The second issue of whether Section 306 of The Indian Penal Code is constitutional or not was
also answered by the Hon’ble Court. The Court affirmed that assisted attempt to commit suicide
and assisted suicide are made punishable for cogent reasons in the interest of society. The
objective of such a provision is to prevent the inherent danger in the absence of such a penal
provision. Abetment of suicide is a distinct offence that is found enacted even in the law of
countries where attempted suicide is not made punishable. Section 306 enacts a distinct offence
that can survive independent of Section 309 of IPC. As of which, the Court makes it clear that
the arguments made to support the plea for not punishing the person who attempts to commit
suicide do not avail for the benefit of another person assisting in the commission of suicide or in
the attempt of it. Thus, the decision made in the ruling of P. Rathinam v. Union of India was
struck down, making Section 306 and Section 309 of Indian Penal Code constitutionally valid
and making the accused punishable for abetment of suicide.
The High Court upheld the judgement of the Trial Court and thereby rejected the appeal. Since
the act of committing suicide is itself illegal, the act of abetting suicide is also automatically a
punishable offence. Thus Gian Kaur and her husband were sentenced to six years’ imprisonment
and fine of Rs. 2000 each.

Ratio Decidendi
The Court stated that attempt to commit suicide and any person who abets the attempt to
commission of suicide does not violate Article 14 or Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court
had overruled the previous decision in the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India, thereby making
Section 306 and Section 309 of Indian Penal Code constitutionally valid.
CONCLUSION

Prior to this case, the Court gave a misconception that the fundamental right to life infers an
individual’s right to end his life, thus including the right to die. But fortunately, there was not a
sudden cultural outbreak, as there was an existing cultural practice of passive killing in rural
areas of South India. With the help of this instant case, the Apex Court makes it clear that the
“Right to Life” denotes the right to lead a life with dignity. The word “Life” in Article 21 does
not refer to the mere existence on earth, but it mainly emphasizes the right to live with human
dignity and personal liberty. Hence, it must be construed as such. Any facet of life that makes it
dignified may be read into Article 21, but not that which extinguishes it. It may be argued that
death is a natural process and there should be no laws to prevent it. However, taking one’s life on
his own is prima facie, not a natural process. Moreover, it can be construed that India being a
welfare state is more concentrated and ambitious to protect the lives of its citizens. Making a
statute that promotes dead of its citizens is against the framework of the nation. Thus, whatever
the decision of the judiciary, it is for the welfare of the nation and to the orderly living of its
citizens. Henceforth, the instant case signifies the importance of an individual’s life and
emphasis more about leading a life in a dignified manner, and most importantly validating
Section 309 of The Indian Penal Code.