Case law :-

1. Bodhisattwa Gautam v Subbra Chakraborty 1996

Supreme court said if you want to exercise the writ under 32 then it is not important that the
agrieved party must file a PIL in court of law. And can take suo moto cognizance and the private
interest will also will treated as public interest .
2. 39 A Article deals with free legal aid (DSP)
Evolution and development

Fertilizer Corp. Kamgar vs Union of India 1981

Bodhisattwa GautamvSubbra Chakraborty

Fertilizer Corp. Kamgar UnionvUnion of India

In the case of fertilizer Corporation Kamgar v Union Of India And Others [1],

the Judges have tried to broaden the scope of “locus standi” in respect
to Article 32 [2] of the Constitution of India. The scope has now been
increased from “aggrieved” person to “any” person fighting for a proper cause.

Mumbai Kamgar SabhavAbdul Thai

In The Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay v. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai & Others AIR 1976 SC 1455,
this Court made conscious efforts to improve the judicial access for the masses by relaxing the
traditional rule of locus standi.

Hussainara KhatoonvState of Bihar

S P GuptavUnion of India
P Rathinam v Union of India (1994) (SC) 
On the basis of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) (SC), it was held in this
case that if a person has a right to live, then he also has a right to die which is
implicit in Article 21. Whenever there is a positive right to do something, the
negative of that right is also implicit.
There is a need to humanize the law – If a person is already under so much distress that he
decides to end his life then he should not be punished for trying to end his life.

Gujjan Kaur v State of Punjab (1996) (SC)

The issue in this case was whether Section 306 of IPC is unconstitutional?
“Once you end your life, you cannot be brought back. However, once you tay silent, you can
thereafter speak.”
 The Court held that Right to Life is not there because it is conferred by State, rather Right
to life is per se because a person exists. The Constitution simply declares and protects
that right. It is not a freedom of action to that a person may refrain from acting. The
negative is implicit in Article 21. Thus, the Supreme Court rejected the very logic of P
Rathinam case.
 If suicide is allowed, then it will create a suicidal alarm in the society. People will start
committing suicide for very small causes and that will be detrimental to the
societal wellbeing.
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v Union of India (2011) (SC)
The passive Euthanasia is allowed with some guidelines:
 The decision to withdraw the life support system can be taken only by the parents,
spouse, some other very close relatives, the next friend (guardian) of the person or by the
doctors attending the patient (sequence to be followed).
 The above-named person will apply to the Chief Justice of High Court and the Chief
Justice will appoint a committee of two sitting High Court Judges which will consult
three expert reputed doctors related to that field and then only it will make its
recommendations. These recommendations are binding.

Common Cause v Union of India (2018) (SC)

An individual has the right to die a natural death with dignity as a part of his Right to life. If a
person is kept alive in the case of some illness or accident only due to some advanced medical
facilities, then he does have a right to die a natural death with dignity by removing these
facilities.
When the State cannot guarantee in totality the right to health, then how can it deny the right to
deny with dignity.
Moreover, the engagement of lifecare facilities unnecessarily for one person whereas there may
be some other person in the need of such facilities will be improper. Also, a prolonged existence
of a person merely due to advanced medical facilities without his willingness is against human
dignity.S
A person of unsound person and health can make a living will that in case he falls into a situation
of persistent incurable vegetative state, then the medical supporter shall be allowed a natural
death. Such a will is quite valid. He can even authorize his friend or relative to decide the same
in consultation with the doctors. 
The Supreme Court did not make any comment on Aruna Shanbaug case.