GYAN KAUR V. STATE OF PUNJAB, 21ST MARCH,1996.

Bench: Justices JS Verma, GN Ray, NP Singh, Faizan Uddin, and GT Nanavati

FACTS OF THE CASE

In this case, Gian Kaur and her husband Harbans Singh were accused of committing the
offence of abetting the suicide of their daughter-in-law, Kulwant Kaur. For this purpose, the
Trial Court convicted them under Section 306(108 BNS) of The Indian Penal Code.
Thereafter, they were punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term of six years each
and were asked to pay the ne amount worth Rs. 2,000/-, and in case of non-payment of
the ne within the speci ed time, an additional nine months of rigorous imprisonment was
said to be enforced. Nevertheless, the appellants thereafter made an appeal at the High
Court, who reiterated the Lower Court’s decision of declaring the appellants rightly
convicted of the said crime. Also the sentence of Gian Kaur alone was reduced from six
years to rigorous imprisonment to three years. Soon after that, the Appellants then
approached the Supreme Court through the Special Leave Petition against their conviction
sentence under Section 306 of IPC.

ISSUES RAISED

• Whether or not Article 21 that talks about ‘Right to life’ also includes ‘Right to die’?
• Is Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 constitutionally valid?
• Does Section 309(226 BNS) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 violate Article 14 and 21 of the
Indian Constitution?

PETITIONER'S ARGUMENTS
• Section 306 of IPC must be held constitutionally invalid with reference to the case of P.
Rathinam v. Union of India, which importantly declared Section 309 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 as
unconstitutional as it violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
• It was argued that having been declared in P. Rathinam case that `right to die’ falls within the
ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution, and that any person assisting the enforcement of the `right to
die’ is simply assisting the enforcement of Article 21, so following this it cannot be penal. Hence, it
was contended that Section 306 of IPC, which makes that act punishable, therefore, ultimately
violates Article 21.
• Section 309 of IPC is unconstitutional since it violates Article 14 of the Constitution on the
grounds that the provision is discriminatory & arbitrary.

RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENTS

• The Respondent i.e in this case, the State wanted the decision of the Trial Court and the High
Court to be upheld by the Supreme Court.
• It was strongly argued that Section 306 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 talks about the abetment
of attempt to suicide which is an independent provision on its own and hence it should not rely for
validation on Section 309 of the same act.
fi
fi
fi
• Section 306 is constitutional and it does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution. It was
contended that the ruling of the case P. Rathinam v. Union of India should be struck down since
Section 309 of IPC is also constitutionally valid.
• ‘Right to life’ is inherently inconsistent with the ‘right to die’ and the right to die cannot be said
to fall within the ambit of Article 21.
• There is no merit in the appellant’s arguments based on Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

OVERVIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT

In Gyan Kaur v. State of Punjab, a five-judge Constitutional Bench held that ‘Right to Life’ as
stated under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, does not include the ‘Right to die’. The Supreme
Court emphasized that ‘Right to life’ also includes the ‘right to a dignified life’ till a person reaches
the point of death. This must resonate with a dignified and natural procedure of death. By saying
this, the Court meant that the ‘Right to die’ with dignity at the end of an individual’s life should not
be confused with the ‘Right to die’ in an unnatural manner of death. It was asserted that any act
accelerating the process of natural death of an individual is not legal under Article 21.Hence the
appellant’s contention that Section 309 of The Indian Penal Code is unconstitutional, since it
violated Article 21 of the Constitution was rejected. Moreover, the court did not also regard the
petitioner’s contention regarding the constitutional validity of Section 309 based on Article 14.The
question of whether Section 306 of The Indian Penal Code is constitutional or not was also
answered by the Apex Court. The Court declared that ‘assisted attempt to commit suicide’ and
‘assisted suicide’ are punishable for obvious reasons in the larger interest of society. The aim of
such a provision is to curtail the innate danger present in its absence. Thus, the decision of P.
Rathinam v. Union of India was struck down, making Section 306 and Section 309 of Indian Penal
Code constitutionally valid and declaring the accused punishable for abetment of suicide.