DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,LUCKNOW

SESSION-2015-16

SUBJECT: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

TOPIC:RIGHT TO DIE AND DEATH PENALTY

Submitted by: Submitted to:

Lokesh Nigam Mr. Mahendra Singh Paswan

B.A. L.LB (Hons.) ( Asst. Proff. )

3rd Semester Dr. RMLNLU

Section- A

Roll no.- 74

1|Page
 CONTENTS
Introduction.
Whether right to die is come under the right to life?
I have the right to die.
Various issues for right to die.
Death penalty
Leading cases
Reason for death penalty

INTRODUCTION

2|Page
Our Indian Constitution does not gives the freedom of right to die because due to the fact that
some people feel it is murder while others say it is dying with dignity. Assisted suicide is the
practice of dying through lethal injection or over dose on pills either administered or prescribed
by a doctor to a patient who no longer wants to live. Why would anyone one to be a part of
assisted suicide? Many people with terminally illness are mainly the ones who want to partake in
this action, but should only assisted suicide be saved for those who are deathly ill? People who
are mentally ill and cant seem to be a part of reality and cant live among the norm feel like they
too should have these rights. From the laws perspective many feels it is murder because one
person is taking the life of another. How could this be consider murder if one of the people is
asking for their life to end?

Capital punishment, Death Penalty, or execution is the infliction of death upon a person by
judicial process as a punishment for an offence. Crimes that can result in a death penalty are
known as capital crimes or capital offences. Capital punishment or in easier terms the death
penalty is applied to people who have done various forms of bad behaviour. THE DEBATE
whether the death penalty should be abolished or not is one of most long lasting and impassioned
debates going on in the civil society and political sphere in India. Some subscribe to the "eye for
an eye" or "life for life" philosophy, while others believe that sanctioned death is wrong.
We kill people to tell the people that killing is wrong

Whether right to die is come under a right to life or not?

3|Page
The Indian constitution under article 21 confers the right to life as the fundamental right of every
citizen. The right to life enriched in article 21 have been liberally interpreted so as to mean
something more than mere animal existence. The supreme court has asserted that article 21 is the
heart of the fundamental rights provided under part III of the constitution.1
Section 309 of IPC which makes a suicide bid punishable with imprisonment up to one year, or
with fine, or both.
The word life in Article 21 has been construed as life with human dignity and anything which
makes the life dignified may be read into it but not that which extinguishes the right itself.
However Article 21 includes a dignified up to the end point of death i.e., the right of a man to die
with dignity when his life is ebbing out. But this right to die with dignity at the end of life
cannot be equated with the right to die an unnatural death thereby terminating the natural span
of life.

I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DIE

1 Indian constitutional law mp jain

4|Page
 1. If I have been guaranteed right to life, I should be guaranteed the right to die as well.
C A Thomas, 86-year-old retired school teacher of Thrissur, who was the first one in India to
demand the right for voluntary death had argued that Article 21 indeed bestowed on every citizen
a right to life and method of death. Our Constitution guarantees the right to life. The right to life
is incomplete without the right to death. The karma of life is a wheel that is completed only when
birth is complemented by death. The right to die is built into the right to live.
Supreme Court in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab3, said that it is well settled that the right to life
guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution does not include the right to die. The Court held that
Article 21 is a provision guaranteeing protection of life and personal liberty and by no stretch of
the imagination can extinction of life be read into it. To give meaning and content to the word
'life' in Article 21, it has been construed as life with human dignity. Any aspect of life which
makes it dignified may be read into it but not that which extinguishes it and is, therefore,
inconsistent with the continued existence of life resulting in effacing the right itself.

The 'right to life' including the right to live with human dignity would mean the existence of such
a right up to the end of natural life. This also includes the right to a dignified life up to the point
of death including a dignified procedure of death. In other words, this may include the right of a
dying man to also die with dignity when his life is ebbing out.
It is argued that right to die respects the individual's right to self-determination or his right of
privacy. Interference with that right can only be justified if it is to protect essential social values,
which is not the case where patients suffering unbearably at the end of their lives request to die
when no alternatives exist. Not allowing the right to die would come down to forcing people to
suffer against their will, which would be cruel and a negation of their human rights and dignity.
Every person has a right to live with at least a minimum dignity and when the state of his
existence falls below even that minimum level then he must be allowed to end such tortuous
existence. In such cases relief from suffering (rather than preserving life) should be the primary
objective.

At this juncture it would not be out of place to mention that the liberty to die, if not right strict
sense, may be read as part of the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. True that the Supreme Court has held that such an interpretation of Article 21 is incorrect,

5|Page
but it is submitted that one may try to read the freedom to die as flowing from the rights of
privacy, autonomy and self-determination, which is what has been done by the Courts of United
State and England. The Constitution states certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. Since we have this right to life, it is our right to decide what we want to do
with our lives. And people should be free to live their lives as they themselves think best.

2. If I have been reduced to a corpse, suffering from an incurable, interminable disease, I

don't deserve to live with so much pain.
3. Our religion supports a person who wants to die.
4. I fear death and the pain that will come with it, I want to have a sound sleep.
Some believed that death would be a pleasant experience if one were to die at an
advanced age on his won volition with some medical help once he or she thought had
fulfilled all possible duties of life. Most of the old people today spend their lives fretting
about their death and that causes a lot of mental agony and suffering. Guaranteeing a
person the right to die would dismiss the fear of death and mourning now prevalent in
people.

VARIOUS ISSUES FOR RIGHT TO DIE

6|Page
Suicide is the only crime where commission is not punishable but attempt is because if you
succeed you are beyond the law.
What is the suicide law in india?
Under section 309 of Indian penal code, an attempt to commit suicide is punishable with simple
imprisonment up to one year and/or a fine.
18 states and 4 union territories are in favour of deletion of section 309.
In 1994 the supreme court not only decriminalised the attempt to suicide but also
observed right to life includes right to die.
In 1996, a five judge bench headed by justice J.S verma overturned the 1994 decision
which brought section 309 back to life.

You choose your country, you choose your spouse, you choose your profession, you choose your
political masters, and you choose where you want to live and how. Die you must. But how to die
and when: should that be a matter of choice as well?

DEATH PENALTY
A death penalty is the sentence of execution for murder and some other capital crimes (serious
crimes, especially murder, which are punishable by death). The death penalty, or capital

7|Page
punishment, may be prescribed by Congress or any state legislature for murder and other capital
crimes.
"The infliction by due legal process of the penalty of death as a punishment for crime The Latin
use the word capital (from caput, head) to describe that which related to life, that by which life is
endangered. They used the neuter form of this adjective, i.e., capital, substantively to denominate
death, actual or civil, and banishment imposed by public authority in consequence of crime. The
idea of capital punishment is of great antiquity and formed a part of the primal concepts of the
human race."
LEADING CASES

Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab, 1980

The Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court of India in Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab
(1980) (2 SCC 684) made it very clear that Capital punishment in India can be given only in
rarest of rare cases. The Supreme Court of India ruled that the death penalty should be imposed
only in "the rarest of rare cases. While stating that honour killings fall within the "rarest of the
rare" category, Supreme Court has recommended the death penalty be extended to those found
guilty of committing "honour killings", which deserve to be a capital crime. The Supreme Court
also recommended death sentences to be imposed on police officials who commit police
brutality in the form of encounter killings.

REASON FOR DEATH PENALTY

8|Page
 Times have changed.
Previously, in reviewing the death penalty, the Law Commission rejected its abolition citing the
size of the country and diversity of its population across which law and order had to be
maintained.
A great deal has changed in India, the commissions 2015 report said. It listed a higher
national wage, changes in development, the introduction of a new code of criminal procedure in
1973, the emergence of constitutional due process standards, calls for abolition of the death
penalty from political parties and judicial developments among the reasons to review capital
punishment.

Its not a deterrent.

Indias murder rate has declined, falling from 4.6 per 100,000 people in 1992 to 2.7 per 100,000
in 2013. That has coincided with a decline in the rate of executions, raising questions about
whether the death penalty has any greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment,

Sentencing is arbitrary.
Indias Supreme Court has raised questions about arbitrary sentencing in death penalty cases,
the report said. Making the sentencing less arbitrary would be difficult since any categorization
of offenses doesnt take into account the differences between cases.

Capital punishment in india should be allowed in india

or banned
9|Page
Capital punishment is when a person guilty of heinous crimes particularly that of rape or murder
is sentenced to death. In India capital punishment is carried out by hanging the accused by the
neck till the person is alive no more. In developed countries this could be substituted by the
electrical chair or shooting.
Dating back to the 1772 BC, we see how even The Code of Hammurabi had established many
stern laws to punish the guilty. The laws put down were harsh on all practicing illegal activities.
This not only decreased crime rates but also provided a clear message to all, that anyone
interfering with the rights of the people would be dealt with seriously.
Another alternative to capital punishment is that of life imprisonment which is 14 years is in
India. And for India, who is staggering with rising inflation and poverty, to feed and clothe the
convicts is an extra expense they can be cut down upon. India is not a rich country and we are
struggling with population issues already and to waste our limited natural resources on convicts
is not sensible.
Serving out capital punishment also helps in spreading fear in the minds of the people. They will
hesitate and restrain from committing crime and infiltrating on the rights of the people. Having a
country that serves out capital punishment definitely brings about faith in the judicial system of a
nation.
When India was formed and Law was introduced to the land, punishments were dealt out to kill
the criminal in the person not the person. We seem to have forgotten what the motto of the
judiciary system of India says: Whence Dharma, Thence Victory, which roughly translates to
restoring order to the society and not eradicating the very person.
We seem to have somewhere switched of the humanity in us while dealing with the convicts and
we turn a blind side to the human within the convict and only highlight his crime. Yes he has
committed a crime but we cannot punish him by taking away his life that would never address
the situation it would simply suppress it. One must deal with the crime and eradicate it from the
criminal.
Today technology is leaping in bounds and chains hence why should our judicial system be still
plagued with age old practices. Just like the dawning of democracy over monarchy similarly

10 | P a g e
other methods need to be adopted to instill a sense of restriction in the minds of the people to not
meddle with the rights of individuals.
Every individual alive has the right to live and only the giver has the right to take it away, hence
no mere immortal shall possess such godly power. We should evolve with time and our practices
should change with time.
We should strive to love ourselves, to better our selves so that humanity can prosper.

Conclusion

11 | P a g e
About right to die If you have the right to own a computer that means that you have the right to
destroy it if you so desire. If you have the right to voluntarily live, then that life is truly yours
only insofar you also have the corollary right to voluntarily give it up. If you would only have
the right to live but not die, then by definition that would not be a true right since a true right
must also always ha to contain a voluntary choice. If there is only one option, then there is no
room for any choices. In the latter case your "right to life" would in fact only mean that you have
a right for your life not being justifiably taken away by others: it would only be a limitation put
on others and not a freedom given to you. If we assume however that one is absolutely entitled to
the ownership of her or his body and by extension, thoughts, mind and self, then having a right to
choose their elimination must be an expression of a true liberty, a true right to live. Otherwise
who would claim the right to decide what should happen with your body and life?
My conclusion is, that if you are denied the right to dispose of yourself a you see fit, you are
nothing more than a slave whose only right is to continue to serve its masters, but not to flee.

About death penalty we have read about death penalty and reason of death penalty and the
result is that the death penalty should be allowed. It is not for the accused to think about his or
her interest, Death penalty provide for the benefit of the society and for the welfare of citizens.
If the death penalty is abolish then the people would not fear about the crimes, they can easily
rape the female, easily murder someone. To provide security in the mind of the society capital
punishment should be allowed.

Bibliography

12 | P a g e
 www.manupatra.com
http://www.legalsearch.com
http://lawteacher.net
www.lawcommissionofindia.com
www.euthanasia.com

The Constitutional Law of India by Dr. J.N.Pandey

The Constitutional Law of India by V.N.Shukla.

Course Material compiled by Mr. Atul Sinha and Mr. C.M. Jariwala.

Lijphart, Arend (1999). Patterns of democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press

government". Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press. November 2010.

The Blackwell dictionary of political science: a user's guide to its terms. Wiley-
Blackwell.

Oxford English Dictionary: American English, Oxford University Press. 2012.

CIA the world factbook

Nelson, Dana D. (2008). Bad for Democracy: How the Presidency Undermines the Power
of the People

13 | P a g e