Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) – Right to Die with Dignity & Living Will
Classroom-style explainer on how the Supreme Court of India recognised passive euthanasia and living wills as part of the right to die with dignity under Article 21.
Video Explainer
Watch & ReviseCommon Cause v. Union of India.
Quick Summary
Imagine a patient in the ICU, on life support, with no real chance of recovery. The body is alive only because of machines. The mind is not responding. The family is watching the suffering every day. The big question is: does this person have a right to say “enough, let me go with dignity”?
In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), a public interest group asked the Supreme Court to answer this hard question. They wanted the Court to recognise that the right to life with dignity under Article 21 also includes the right to die with dignity when a person is terminally ill and beyond recovery.
A five-judge Constitution Bench used earlier cases like P. Rathinam, Gian Kaur and Aruna Shanbaug as background. The Court finally held that passive euthanasia (withdrawing life support in a genuine terminal condition) is constitutionally valid. The Court also said that an adult can make a living will or advance medical directive, clearly stating in advance when life support should be stopped.
At the same time, the Court drew a clear line between suicide and passive euthanasia. It refused to treat this judgment as approval of a general “right to die”. Instead, the focus is on a peaceful, dignified and medically supervised end to life when nature has already reached the final stage.
Issues
- Whether the “right to die with dignity” is part of the “right to life” under Article 21.
- Whether passive euthanasia (withdrawing life support in a terminal, irreversible condition) is constitutionally valid in India.
- Whether an adult can legally make a living will / advance medical directive and, if yes, what safeguards and procedure must be followed.
- How to reconcile earlier conflicting decisions on suicide and right to die, especially P. Rathinam, Gian Kaur and Aruna Shanbaug.
Rules & Legal Background
Constitutional Provisions
- Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty – interpreted to include life with dignity.
- Article 14: Equality before law – used to test any arbitrary difference in treatment of terminally ill patients.
- Article 32 & 226: Writ jurisdiction of Supreme Court and High Courts – used to protect fundamental rights in such sensitive medical situations.
Criminal Law Context
- Section 306 IPC: Abetment of suicide – still a crime.
- Section 309 IPC (attempt to suicide): The Court discussed earlier debates on its validity and the idea that punishing suicide attempts is unfair and outdated.
- With the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, attempt to suicide is largely decriminalised, except when it is used to pressurise a public servant (now covered separately). In daily practice, simple suicide attempts are no longer treated as a normal criminal offence.
Important Earlier Judgments
- P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994): Held that Section 309 IPC is unconstitutional and treated right to die as part of Article 21. This approach was later found to be too broad.
- Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996): Overruled Rathinam. Said right to life does not include a general right to die. However, it accepted that a person can have a right to “die with dignity” during the natural process of death.
- Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011): Allowed passive euthanasia in rare cases and laid down temporary guidelines, but required approval of the High Court.
Facts – Timeline Style
Medical technology can keep a person’s body alive on machines for a long time, even when the brain is permanently damaged and there is no chance of recovery. Families and doctors are often confused about whether they can lawfully stop such treatment.
An NGO called Common Cause filed a writ petition under Article 32 before the Supreme Court. It argued that right to life with dignity must logically include a right to die with dignity when a person is terminally ill and on life support.
The NGO requested the Court to recognise passive euthanasia and to give legal status to living wills / advance directives, so that a person can record in advance whether they want life support to continue in a hopeless medical condition.
Earlier cases were not consistent: P. Rathinam treated right to die as part of Article 21, while Gian Kaur rejected that view but spoke of “dying with dignity”. Aruna Shanbaug allowed passive euthanasia but only through the High Court.
Because of these contradictions, the issue was referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench. The Bench had to give a clear, final position on passive euthanasia and living wills within the Indian constitutional framework.
Arguments – Petitioner vs. State
Petitioner: Common Cause (NGO)
- Dignity at the end of life: The right to live with dignity should not stop at the moment of birth or at the middle of life. It must also cover the final stage of life.
- When a patient is terminally ill and beyond recovery, forcing life support is like forcing prolonged physical and mental torture on the patient and family.
- They were not asking for a general “right to die”. They asked for a right to die with dignity in a natural and inevitable death process.
- Living will is important so that doctors are not afraid of criminal cases when they follow the patient’s clearly written wishes in a hopeless case.
- Respecting a competent adult’s informed choice about medical treatment is part of autonomy and self-determination, values already recognised under Article 21.
Respondent: Union of India (Government)
- Protection of life: Article 21 creates a duty on the State to protect life, not to recognise a right to end it.
- “Right to life” was argued to mean support for things like food, shelter and health care, not a right to death in any form.
- The Government said that the guidelines given in Aruna Shanbaug were enough and should continue until Parliament makes a law.
- They also raised fears of misuse, especially against elderly or disabled persons, if passive euthanasia and living wills are recognised without very strict safeguards.
Judgment – What the Supreme Court Held
- Right to die with dignity is part of Article 21. The Court clearly stated that the right to life includes the right to live and also leave the world with dignity when the natural process of death has started and recovery is impossible.
- Passive euthanasia is constitutionally valid. Withdrawal of life support in carefully checked terminal cases is allowed, provided the procedure given by the Court is followed.
- Living will / advance directive is legally enforceable. An adult of sound mind can record their wishes in writing for a future situation where they may not be able to communicate.
- The Court gave a detailed multi-step procedure involving: the treating doctor, a hospital medical board, a separate board formed by the District Collector, and final confirmation by a Judicial Magistrate.
- If the medical board refuses to act on the living will, the patient’s family or representative can approach the High Court under Article 226.
- The Court reaffirmed that suicide and active euthanasia (for example, by giving a lethal injection) remain illegal. The judgment only accepts passive euthanasia, where nature is allowed to take its course.
In short, the Court balanced autonomy, dignity and protection from misuse. It treated the patient’s own choice, expressed in a free and informed way, as central to the law on end-of-life decisions.
Ratio Decidendi – Core Legal Principle
The core principle of Common Cause v. Union of India can be put in one line:
“When a person is at the final, irreversible stage of life, the right to life with dignity under Article 21 includes the right to die with dignity by refusing or withdrawing artificial life support, through a carefully regulated process.”
- Autonomy over one’s body and medical treatment is part of personal liberty under Article 21.
- Dignity does not end when biological life is artificially extended by machines. Law must respect dignity in the dying process as well.
- The State can place reasonable safeguards to prevent abuse, but it cannot completely deny the right to refuse unwanted life-prolonging treatment.
Why This Case Matters – Student Lens
For law students, this case is a perfect example of how the Supreme Court uses earlier precedents, values like dignity and autonomy, and modern medical realities to expand the meaning of Article 21.
- It settles the confusion created by P. Rathinam and Gian Kaur on “right to die”, and moves the discussion to “right to die with dignity”.
- It converts the tentative guidance in Aruna Shanbaug into a full, detailed framework for passive euthanasia.
- It shows how the Court reads dignity into many different areas – privacy, death penalty, and now end-of-life care.
- It has a strong human side: the ICU situation, the suffering of families and the moral pressure on doctors.
- For exams, this case is a must-quote authority on Article 21, euthanasia, living wills and medical autonomy.
In simple words, Common Cause tells us that the Constitution cares not only about how long we live, but also about how peacefully we are allowed to leave.
Key Takeaways for Exams
- Article 21 + Dignity: Right to life includes right to die with dignity in the final stage of life.
- Passive euthanasia valid: Withdrawal of life support allowed with safeguards.
- Living will recognised: Adult of sound mind can write advance directive about future treatment.
- Strict procedure: Two medical boards + Judicial Magistrate + possibility of High Court review.
- No general right to die: Suicide and active euthanasia still not allowed.
- Builds on earlier cases: Clarifies impact of Gian Kaur and Aruna Shanbaug.
- Section 309 IPC: Practically dead; BNS framework moves away from punishing suicide attempts.
- Theme word: Always connect this case with the word dignity.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Memory Hook
Think of a patient who wants to “DIE CALM” in the ICU. Each letter helps you unlock the case:
- D – Dignity: Right to die with dignity under Article 21.
- I – Instructions: Living will / advance directive allowed.
- E – Euthanasia (Passive): Withdrawal of life support is valid.
- C – Court Procedure: Medical boards + Magistrate approval.
- A – Autonomy: Patient’s choice and self-determination.
- L – Law on Suicide: No general right to die; suicide still different.
- M – Medical Safeguards: Multi-layer checks to prevent misuse.
3-Step Hook for 10-Mark Answers
- Start with the ICU picture: briefly describe a terminal patient on life support and ask the dignity question.
- Bring in the legal journey: mention P. Rathinam, Gian Kaur, Aruna Shanbaug and then Common Cause as the final step.
- End with “DIE CALM”: quickly list dignity, living will, passive euthanasia and safeguards as the four core ideas.
IRAC Outline – Exam-Ready
Issue
Whether the right to life under Article 21 includes a right to die with dignity for terminally ill patients, and whether passive euthanasia and living wills can be legally recognised in India.
Rule
Article 21 guarantees life and personal liberty with dignity. Earlier in Gian Kaur, the Court rejected a general right to die but accepted dignified dying. Aruna Shanbaug allowed passive euthanasia with guidelines. Criminal law still punishes abetment of suicide.
Application
The Court treated forced continuation of life support in a hopeless medical state as an attack on dignity and autonomy. At the same time, it recognised the risk of misuse. So it read Article 21 in a way that respects the patient’s choice but surrounded it with careful medical and judicial checks.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that the right to die with dignity is part of Article 21. It formally recognised passive euthanasia and living wills as constitutionally valid, but only through the multi-layered procedure set out in the judgment.
Glossary – Simple Words for Tough Terms
Passive Euthanasia: Stopping or not starting a medical treatment (like a ventilator) so that a terminally ill patient can die naturally, without extra suffering.
Active Euthanasia: Causing death by a direct action, such as giving a lethal injection. This remains illegal in India.
Living Will / Advance Directive: A written document in which a person clearly states in advance what should be done if they later reach a terminal, irreversible condition and cannot speak for themselves.
Terminally Ill: A medical condition where death is certain in the near future and no treatment can reverse the disease.
Autonomy: The idea that every adult has the right to make decisions about their own body, including acceptance or refusal of medical treatment.
Dignity: A basic sense of respect and worth that the law must protect at all stages of life, including the last stage.
FAQs – Quick Student Doubts
What did the Supreme Court actually recognise in this case?
The Court recognised that an adult has a right to refuse unwanted medical treatment in a terminal and irreversible condition. This can be done at the time of illness or in advance through a living will. The Court said this flows from Article 21’s guarantee of life with dignity.
Does this judgment make suicide legal in India?
No. The Court clearly separated suicide from passive euthanasia. Suicide is an active attempt to end life. Passive euthanasia only stops artificial support when death is already near and unavoidable. The judgment does not approve active killing or abetment of suicide.
Is Section 309 IPC still relevant after this case and new criminal laws?
In practice, Section 309 IPC is almost dead. The new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita removes normal suicide attempts from the usual criminal category, except where the act is used to pressurise a public servant. The focus is now on medical and mental health support, not punishment.
How should I use Common Cause in my exam answer?
When a question is on Article 21, euthanasia, end-of-life care or dignity, briefly explain Common Cause with the “DIE CALM” mnemonic: dignity, instructions (living will), passive euthanasia, safeguards and autonomy. Link it to Gian Kaur and Aruna Shanbaug to show continuity.
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now