Facts of Gian Kaur v State of Punjab Case

In the case of Gian Kaur v State of Punjab [7], Gian Kaur and her husband
Harbans Singh were accused of abetment to suicide of their daughter-in-
law, Kulwant Singh, since they wanted their son to marry someone else,
someone who could bring them dowry. The trial court had convicted them
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, which states the offence of
abetment to suicide. Both of them were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
of 7 years, and were also liable to pay a fine of Rs. 2000. In case they
defaulted in the payment of fine, they were to be sentenced to further
rigorous imprisonment of 9 months. The convicts appealed to the High
Court, but it upheld the decision of the trial court. The only change that the
High Court made was that it reduced the sentence of Gian Kaur alone from
7 years of rigorous imprisonment to 3 years. The sentence to her husband
remained unchanged. Finally, the appellants approached the Supreme
Court through a Special Leave Petition. They challenged the constitutional
validity of Section 306 of the IPC as being violative of Article 21 of the
Constitution. They argued that as held in P. Rathinam[8], Article 21 includes
the right to life as well as the right to end one’s own life. Hence, a person
who was convicted of the abetment of suicide was simply assisting the right
of a person to take one’s own life.

Judgement of Gian Kaur Case

The question that came before the court was that if the offence of an attempt
to commit suicide is unconstitutional as per the earlier judgements, then
how is the abetment of the same offence valid? A five-judge bench of the
Supreme Court overruled the case of P. Rathinam[9]. The bench held that
the right to life as under Article 21 did not include the right to die or the
right to be killed. The right to life stands in the context of the right to live
with human dignity and the existence of life until natural death arrives. The
aspect of death under the right to life is to die with dignity, and it should not
be confused with unnatural death of a person, resulting in the early
termination of life. The contention that the petitioners put forward of
attempt to suicide being unconstitutional cannot be acknowledged.

Furthermore, the Court stated that acts of abetment to suicide and attempt
to suicide are made penal for legitimate reasons in the interests of the
public. In case such provisions were absent, it would become very easy for a
person to lead someone to their own death. Abetment to suicide is a penal
provision in countries even where an attempt to suicide is not made
punishable. Abetment and attempt to suicide are independent of each other
and the plea of assisting the suicide of a person just for the benefit of that
person cannot be maintainable.
Thus, Sections 306 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code were made
constitutionally valid and were held as not being violative of Article 21 or 14
of the Indian Constitution.

The Court also differentiated between euthanasia and the right to die.
Euthanasia is an act whereby a person’s life is taken intentionally because
he is felt to be not worth living. The Court stated that euthanasia cannot be
a determining factor of the right to live and the right to die under Article 21.

Aftermath of the Case

After Gian Kaur v State of Punjab case, the right to die has not been
accepted by the Indian courts. Another landmark case in this regard was
that of Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India[10], where the victim underwent
a permanent vegetative state for 37 years after being brutally sexually
assaulted. The hospital and the family were allowed to practice
passive euthanasia subject to certain conditions and approval from the High
Court. The court allowed non-voluntary passive euthanasia, since the victim
was not in a state to give consent for the same. The court also said that
active euthanasia could not be used to take the life of someone, whereas
passive euthanasia simply meant that the person was not being saved by
the doctors; they were not actually killing her.

In March 2018, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in Common

Cause v. Union of India[11], unanimously held that the right to die with
dignity is a fundamental right. Apparently, the case overruled Gian Kaur[12],
but it did not strike down any law from the Indian Penal Code.

Overview of Gian Kaur v State of Punjab Case

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has never been free of controversy,

because it encompasses several essential rights required for a decent
standard of human life. Mere animal existence does not imply the
application of the right to life, it is much more than that.

The right to die needs more speculation in order to be clear and certain.
Provisions in the law that are not easy to grasp in one go can often be
misused by offenders and can allow them a chance to escape punishment.
The case of Gian Kaur brought to light the activism of the Supreme Court:
instead of relying on earlier judgements, it approached the issue with a fresh
start and overruled the existing debatable judgements. However, the laws
need more interpretation and certain procedural changes that may simplify
the concept of the right to die.
Which case was overruled by Gian Kaur v State of Punjab?
The case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India was overruled by the decision of
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, where the court had stated that section 309 of
the Indian Penal Code was violative of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution,
and thus, was void.