RIGHT TO DIE:

If Article 21 confers a person right to life, does it also confer right not to live if
the person chooses to end his life.

In P.Rathinam vs. Union of India, a two judge’s bench of Supreme Court of

India took cognisance of the contradiction between Section 309 of IPC and
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court in his judgement ruled that
Right to life also embodied in it a “right not to live” a forced life, to his
detriment, disadvantage or disliking.

The Bench even called for the deletion of Section 309 of IPC , labelling it as a
cruel, irrational which result in punishing a person twice. According to Court
Section 309 of IPC as it violate the article 21 of the constitution and therefore
void in nature. This is necessary to humanize the law. In the opinion of the
court, attempting suicide are a medical and social problem and are best dealt
with by non-customary measures. The court emphasized that attempt to
commit suicide is in reality a cry for help and not for punishment.

The above judgement was judicial view and it could not last for long. The
Rathinam judgement was overruled by the full judge’s bench of the Supreme
Court in Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab. The question arise that if attempt to
commit suicide is not regarded as penal then what happen to those who abet
suicide. Abetment to commit Suicide is made punishable under S.309 of IPC.
But then, if the principle offence to commit suicide is void as being
unconstitutional vis-à-vis Art. 21, then how could abetment thereof be
punishable logically speaking.