Quoting an English writer, a Report of the Law Commission says: “It seems a monstrous procedure to inflict further suffering on even a single individual who has already found life so unbearable, his chances of happiness so slender, that he has been willing to face pain and death in order to cease living. That those for whom life is altogether bitter should be subjected to further bitterness and degradation seems perverse legislation.”

In this Report, the Commission has argued for the deletion of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code which says:

Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both.

In addition to this, the Penal Code contains the following provisions which deal with the abetment of suicide.

Section 305: If any person under eighteen years of age, any insane person, any delirious person, any idiot, or any person in a state of intoxication, commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 306. If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Over the years, there has been a good deal of controversy surrounding these provisions of the law.

In P Rathinam v. Union of India (1994 3 SCC 394), the Supreme Court held that Section 309 violated of Articles 14, 21 which deal with the fundamental right of equality and the right to life and liberty enshrined in the Constitution. However, two years later, in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996 2 SCC 148) it overruled its decision in P Rathinam saying that the Right to Life does not include the Right to Die.

In the Gian Kaur case, the in-laws of a woman who had committed suicide because of being harassed, inter alia, claimed that they could not be guilty of abetting her suicide since the act of committing suicide was itself not an offence. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court overturned the decision given in the P Rathinam case. It held that any aspect of life which makes it dignified may be read into Article 21 of the Constitution but no right that extinguishes life is contemplated by the Article. Suicide was therefore declared to be incompatible and inconsistent with the Right to Life as it is understood under the Constitution. (Ref.: Indian Women: A Socio-Legal Perspective by Saikia, N)

In addition to suicide, there are other situations in which the question of whether the right to die exists has been debated. These situations include those where doctors are asked to be involved in assisted suicides or to perform mercy killings.

There are some circumstances where a doctor’s involvement would not be questioned. For example, a doctor would not normally be held liable for discontinuing life support for a brain dead patient on the request of his family. However, S Balakrishnan argues that the refusal of any modality of treatment including life support is not an act of suicide or an attempt at suicide.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that the law on the subject of euthanasia and assisted suicide is unclear. The Law Commission has begun to study the issue of limiting life support to patients in intensive care units.