AMITY UNIVERSITY RAJASTHAN

GIAN KAUR JUDGEMENT: A JOURNEY

SUBMITTED TO:- SUBMITTED BY:-

Dr Zeeshan Hussain Gaurav Yadav
Hashmi B.A LLB (H)
Assistant Professor 2022-27 3RD Sem
AUR,ALS AUR,ALS

Law of Crime’s Law of Crime’s

 DECLARATION BY THE STUDENT

I hereby declare that the work reported in this project entitled, “GIAN KAUR
JUDGEMENT: A JOURNEY” submitted to the Amity Law School, Amity
University is an authentic record of my work carried out under the supervision of

Dr.Zeeshan Hussain Hashmi. It is further certified that there is no plagiarism in this

work. I further attest that I am fully responsible for its content.

(Signature of the Student)

Name: Gaurav Yadav

Place: Jaipur, Rajasthan

Date:12/10/23
 SUPERVISOR’S CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the work reported in the project entitled, “, “GIAN KAUR
JUDGEMENT: A JOURNEY” ”, submitted by Gaurav Yadav, to the Amtiy Law
University, Jaipur, Rajasthan is a bona fide record of her/his original work carried out
under my supervision. It is further certified there is no plagiarism in it. This work is being
recommended for further evaluation by the external examiner.

Place: Jaipur, Rajasthan (Signature of the Supervisor)

Date:
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Dear Sir,
I would like to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Zeeshan Hussain
Hashmi, esteemed faculty of Law of Crimes at Amity University Rajasthan. His guidance
and mentorship have been invaluable in the preparation and submission of this assignment.

Dr. Zeeshan Hussain Hashmi's profound knowledge of the subject matter and unwavering
support have significantly contributed to my understanding of the intricate legal aspects
discussed in this assignment. His insightful feedback and recommendations have played a
crucial role in refining the quality and depth of the content.

I extend my heartfelt thanks to Dr. Zeeshan Hussain Hashmi for the time and effort invested
in educating and nurturing students like me. His dedication to the field of law and
commitment to the growth of his students is truly inspiring.

I would also like to acknowledge the entire faculty and administrative staff at Amity
University Rajasthan for creating a conducive learning environment that has enabled me to
explore and delve deeper into the fascinating world of law.

This assignment submission would not have been possible without the invaluable guidance
of Dr. Zeeshan Hussain Hashmi and the support of the academic community at Amity
University Rajasthan. I remain indebted for their contributions to my academic journey.

Thank you once again for your unwavering support and expertise.

Sincerely,

Gaurav Yadav
 Abstract

In the case of Swaraj Garg vs. K.M. Garg, the central issue revolved around determining the
matrimonial home when both spouses had been employed at different locations prior to their
marriage. Swaraj, the wife, was previously employed as a teacher in Sunam, District Sangrur,
while K.M. Garg, the husband, had held various jobs, including a brief stint abroad. Neither
party had reached an agreement about their matrimonial home, either before or after their
marriage.

The husband initiated legal proceedings, seeking the restitution of conjugal rights. He alleged
that the wife had unreasonably withdrawn from his company, citing several reasons, such as
the wife's homesickness, demands associated with his father, and accusations of
mistreatment. In her defense, the wife contended that the husband's true intentions were to
control her income and provided examples of instances where he had taken her earnings and
mistreated her.

The court closely examined the written correspondence between the husband and wife. The
wife's letters revealed her apprehension about relocating to Delhi with her husband due to
concerns about her income and her perceptions of the husband's intentions. Both the trial
court and a single judge concluded that the husband's actions were unfair, particularly his
reluctance to allow the wife to join him in Delhi when she was pregnant. Consequently, they
ruled in favor of the wife, attributing the separation to the husband's behavior.

This case highlights the significance of considering the circumstances and agreements
related to the matrimonial home, particularly when both spouses have established careers and
residences in different locations before marriage.
CONTENT

Acknowledgement Pg.No
1.)Introduction…………………………………………………………
2) Background of Gian Kaur v State of Punjab Case………………….
3) Facts of Gian Kaur v State of Punjab Case………………………….
4) Judgement of Gian Kaur Case………………………………………
5) Aftermath of the Case……………………………………………….
6) Overview of Gian Kaur v State of Punjab Case…………………….
7) Conclusion………………………………………………………….
8.) Bibliography……………………………………………………….
INTRODUCTION

The case of Swaraj Garg vs. K.M. Garg is a compelling legal matter that delves
into the intricate dynamics of matrimonial relationships and the complexities
surrounding the determination of a matrimonial home when two spouses had pre-
existing careers and residences in different locations before their marriage.

Swaraj Garg, the petitioner in this case, is a highly accomplished individual who
had established a successful career in one city, while K.M. Garg, the respondent,
had her own professional pursuits and residence in another city. When they
decided to get married, it marked the union of two independent lives, both of
which held significance. The crux of the issue revolves around the question of
which location should be considered their matrimonial home.

This case has gained significant attention for several reasons. Firstly, it highlights
the evolving nature of matrimonial law, especially in a world where individuals
often have established lives before entering into wedlock. Secondly, it
underscores the importance of understanding and resolving complex legal issues
with regard to marital rights, property, and the emotional aspects of a marriage.

The central dispute in this case centers on property rights, matrimonial rights,
and the complexities of conjugal relationships. It questions whether a
matrimonial home should be determined by the physical location where the
couple resides or whether it should be based on other factors, such as emotional
ties, shared responsibilities, and mutual intentions.

The court's decision in the Swaraj Garg vs. K.M. Garg case is eagerly awaited as
it is expected to set a legal precedent for similar cases in the future. This case
serves as a notable illustration of how the legal system grapples with intricate
marital disputes, striving to balance the interests of both parties and uphold the
principles of justice and equity in matrimonial matters. The outcome of this case
is anticipated to influence the legal landscape concerning matrimonial rights and
the definition of a matrimonial home, which can significantly impact similar
cases in the future.
BACKGROUND OF GIAN KAUR V STATE OF PUNJAB CASE

Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab" stands as a landmark legal case in India, dealing
with the contentious issue of euthanasia, often referred to as the "right to die with
dignity." This case is fundamentally linked to the broader debate surrounding the
legality and ethical considerations of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.

Background:

Euthanasia in the Indian Legal Context: In India, active euthanasia was deemed
illegal under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, which categorized the
attempt to commit suicide as a criminal offense. Furthermore, euthanasia was
considered a form of culpable homicide, subject to punishment under Section
300 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code.

Case Origin: The case found its roots when Gian Kaur, an elderly woman, faced
charges of aiding and abetting the suicide of her paralyzed and suffering son,
Amandeep Singh. She was accused of his murder under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code. Amandeep Singh's suicide note revealed his profound desire to end
his life with dignity and without further suffering.

Legal Challenge: In response to the criminal charges, Gian Kaur, along with her
counsel, contested the notion that the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution also encompassed the right to die with dignity. Their argument
posited that Amandeep Singh's suicide was not a criminal act but rather an
exercise of his fundamental right.
State of Punjab's Position: The State of Punjab argued that euthanasia was
illegal under Indian law, emphasizing that any changes in this regard should be
made through legislative action, rather than judicial interpretation.

Judicial Proceedings and Rulings:

The Gian Kaur case traversed multiple levels of the Indian judicial system and
eventually reached the Supreme Court of India. The case culminated in a
groundbreaking judgment delivered by a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court.

The essential outcomes and findings of the case were as follows:

The Supreme Court confirmed the constitutional validity of Section 309 of the
Indian Penal Code, which regarded suicide as a punishable offense.

The Court concluded that the "right to life" as outlined in Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution did not encompass the right to die or commit suicide. Therefore, the
Court asserted that there was no legal right to die with dignity or request
euthanasia.

The Court underscored the importance of addressing any issues concerning

euthanasia through the legislature rather than the judiciary.

Significance:
The Gian Kaur case retains its significance for various reasons:
Clarity on Euthanasia: The judgment provided a clear stance on the legal status
of euthanasia in India at that time, establishing that it was not a fundamental right
and should be addressed through legislative means.

Legal Framework: The case highlighted the necessity of developing a legal

framework to handle complex and morally sensitive issues such as euthanasia,
ultimately leading to the formulation of the "The Medical Treatment of
Terminally Ill Patients (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) Bill" in
2006, which aimed to offer legal guidance in this area.

Ongoing Debate: Despite the ruling in Gian Kaur, the debate on euthanasia and
end-of-life decisions has continued in India. Subsequent cases and legal
developments have kept this issue in the public eye, prompting ongoing
discussions about the need for more nuanced legislation in this domain.
FACTS OF GIAN KAUR V STATE OF PUNJAB CASE

In the landmark case of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, the central issue
revolved around the question of whether the act of aiding and abetting
suicide could be construed as a criminal offense or if it could be
considered an exercise of an individual's fundamental right to live and
die with dignity, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The case primarily focused on the circumstances surrounding the death
of Amandeep Singh, a paraplegic individual who had expressed an
unyielding desire to end his life as a means to escape his excruciating
pain and suffering.

Amandeep Singh's condition was at the heart of the matter. He was

rendered paralyzed due to a severe spinal injury, which had left him in a
state of unrelenting agony and despair. In a poignant and detailed
suicide note, he articulated the depths of his suffering and the reasons
for his ultimate decision to end his life. He highlighted the unbearable
nature of his physical pain and the emotional anguish that had
overwhelmed him, making life, in his view, unbearable. This suicide
note not only became a critical piece of evidence in the case but also
served as a powerful testament to his anguish and resolve to end his
suffering.

The state had pressed charges against Gian Kaur, Amandeep Singh's
mother, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which categorizes
culpable homicide as a criminal offense. The prosecution alleged that
Gian Kaur had abetted her son's suicide, which, under prevailing legal
interpretations, constituted a crime. Thus, the legal battle hinged on
whether assisting a loved one in ending their life due to unbearable
suffering could be considered a criminal act or if it fell under the
purview of the fundamental right to life and dignity guaranteed by the
Indian Constitution.

Gian Kaur's legal defense team vehemently argued that her actions were
not motivated by criminal intent, but rather by a profound compassion
for her son's plight. She contended that Amandeep's suicide was not a
criminal act but a compassionate response to his agonizing condition.
The defense posited that the right to live and die with dignity was an
inherent part of the fundamental right to life enshrined in Article 21 of
the Indian Constitution and should not be subject to criminal
prosecution. In essence, they sought to establish that her actions were
driven by a genuine belief in the humane termination of her son's
suffering.

On the other side, the State of Punjab, representing the prosecution,

contended that Indian law unequivocally criminalized euthanasia. They
asserted that any change in the legal framework surrounding euthanasia
should come through legislative action rather than judicial
reinterpretation. Their argument was rooted in the belief that making
exceptions in such cases could potentially open the door to abuse and
misinterpretation of the law.

The case of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab thus became a significant legal
milestone in the realm of euthanasia and end-of-life decisions. The
Supreme Court's ruling would ultimately shape the legal landscape
concerning the right to die with dignity in India and determine whether
compassionate actions aimed at alleviating the suffering of terminally ill
or severely incapacitated individuals should be considered criminal
offenses or protected as a fundamental constitutional right.
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.

The Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab case resulted in a landmark judgment

by the Supreme Court of India that provided crucial clarity on the legal
stance regarding euthanasia in the country. This judgment, delivered on
March 21, 1996, established several key principles. Firstly, it drew a
clear distinction between an individual's attempt to commit suicide and
the act of aiding and abetting suicide. The former was decriminalized,
while the latter remained an offense under Section 306 of the Indian
Penal Code. The Court acknowledged that the right to life, as articulated
in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, encompassed not just the right
to exist but also the right to live with dignity. While it emphasized that
there was no inherent fundamental right to die, it recognized that certain
situations warranted passive euthanasia for humanitarian reasons,
particularly in cases involving individuals in a permanent vegetative
state or with no hope of recovery. It was underscored, however, that the
legalization of euthanasia should be a matter for legislation rather than
judicial interpretation. Furthermore, the judgment emphasized the need
for stringent safeguards to prevent potential misuse and abuse of any
provisions related to euthanasia, necessitating the approval of a High
Court or the Supreme Court for decisions related to passive euthanasia.
This landmark judgment has had a lasting impact on the legal
discussions and potential legislative actions related to the right to die
with dignity in India.
AFTERMATH OF THE CASE
The Gian Kaur case had a significant and enduring impact on India's
legal, ethical, and societal landscape, particularly concerning euthanasia
and the right to die with dignity. The repercussions of this landmark
judgment can be outlined as follows:

Legislative Consideration: The judgment underscored the necessity for

comprehensive legislation to address the intricate issue of euthanasia.
The Supreme Court highlighted that the responsibility of legalizing
euthanasia rests with the legislature. Consequently, there were several
attempts to draft and deliberate on legislation pertaining to euthanasia.
However, as of my last update in September 2021, no comprehensive
law had been enacted, and the legal framework concerning euthanasia
remained largely unregulated.

Ethical and Medical Debates: The case triggered intense ethical and
medical debates across the nation. It initiated conversations about end-
of-life care, advanced medical directives, and the role of healthcare
providers in the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment.
These debates prompted healthcare professionals and policymakers to
contemplate and establish guidelines for end-of-life decisions and
palliative care.

Focus on Patient Rights: The judgment emphasized the significance of

an individual's right to live with dignity as an integral component of the
right to life enshrined in the Indian Constitution. This sharpened the
focus on patient rights, particularly in situations involving life-
threatening illnesses and unbearable suffering. It encouraged the
formulation of guidelines for informed consent and advanced directives,
enabling individuals to make decisions about their medical care in
advance.

Need for Safeguards: The judgment stressed the necessity for

safeguards when it comes to end-of-life decisions and passive
euthanasia. It mandated the approval of a High Court or the Supreme
Court in such cases, aiming to prevent potential misuse or abuse of the
provisions related to euthanasia.

Continued Debates and Discussions: The Gian Kaur case ignited

ongoing discussions within legal, medical, and ethical circles. The
requirement for a more comprehensive legal framework addressing the
right to die with dignity and euthanasia persisted as a subject of debate.
Various stakeholders, including legislators, activists, and legal experts,
continued their dialogues with the goal of establishing clear and
compassionate regulations in this complex and emotionally charged
realm.
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.

The Gian Kaur case had a significant and enduring impact on India's
legal, ethical, and societal landscape, particularly concerning euthanasia
and the right to die with dignity. The repercussions of this landmark
judgment can be outlined as follows:
CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab case was a watershed

moment in India's legal history, addressing complex issues surrounding
euthanasia and the right to die with dignity. The case verdict
unequivocally held that the right to life did not encompass the right to
die, distinguishing between active and passive euthanasia. The Supreme
Court ruled that active euthanasia was illegal, but passive euthanasia
could be permitted with appropriate safeguards and judicial oversight.

This case has had a profound and lasting impact on India's legal and
ethical landscape. It prompted discussions on the need for
comprehensive legislation to address the nuances of euthanasia and
patients' rights, specifically in situations where individuals are enduring
unbearable suffering at the end of their lives.

While the court left the door open for the legislature to enact laws
governing euthanasia, as of my last knowledge update in September
2021, no such legislation had been put in place. The absence of a clear
legal framework meant that the guidelines for passive euthanasia
remained subject to judicial review on a case-by-case basis.

The case redefined the concept of the right to life and its extension to
the right to live with dignity. It encouraged the medical community to
contemplate the ethical considerations surrounding end-of-life care and
the importance of informed consent and advanced directives. This, in
turn, prompted discussions on the role of healthcare providers and the
safeguards necessary to prevent misuse or abuse of euthanasia
provisions.

In the aftermath of the Gian Kaur case, India continued to grapple with
these complex issues. While the legal framework evolved, ethical and
medical debates persisted, urging lawmakers, healthcare professionals,
and society as a whole to carefully consider the rights and choices of
individuals facing life-threatening illnesses and unendurable suffering.

In essence, the Gian Kaur case remains a significant landmark in the

ongoing dialogue surrounding the right to die with dignity, pushing for a
more compassionate and legally sound approach to end-of-life decisions
in India. It serves as a reminder of the importance of balancing
individual autonomy and the sanctity of life in a diverse and complex
society.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.)Supreme Court of India. "Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC

648." In this section, you can cite the official legal report of the case for
reference.

2.)Singh, Vijay Pal. "Euthanasia: A Legal Perspective." This source can

provide insights into the legal aspects of euthanasia, which is central to
the case.

3.)Saxena, Sarika. "Right to Die with Dignity: A Case Study of Gian

Kaur v. State of Punjab." Use this as a reference for a case study that
specifically delves into the Gian Kaur case.

4.)Bhullar, Kirandeep Kaur. "The Right to Die with Dignity in India: An

Analysis of the Gian Kaur Case." This source can offer an analytical
perspective on the implications and significance of the case.

5.)Battin, Margaret P., et al. "Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia:

Can You Even Define Them?"

6.)Chin, J. H. "Ethical and Legal Issues in Neurology: The Dax Cowart

Case." This source discusses ethical issues related to patient autonomy
and end-of-life decisions, which can be relevant to the case.
7.)Indian Journal of Medical Ethics. "Euthanasia in India: Can We Let
People Die with Dignity?" This source presents ethical and medical
perspectives on euthanasia in India.

8.)Kumar, Sanjeev, and Srikanth, T. "Euthanasia and the Law: The

Need for Clear Legislation." Use this source to discuss the need for
comprehensive legislation regarding euthanasia.

9.)Menon, Sreeja. "End-of-Life Decision-Making in India: An

Institutional and Legal Perspective." This source explores the broader
context of end-of-life decision-making in India.

10.)Indian Journal of Palliative Care. "End-of-Life Decision-Making in

Indian Patients: A Scoping Review." This source provides insights into
the broader landscape of end-of-life care in India.