Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Sections 306 and 309 IPC, Rejects ‘Right to Die’ Under Article 21

Five-Judge Constitution Bench overturns earlier two-judge bench ruling, clarifies that Article 21 protects the right to life but does not include the right to die; abetment of suicide remains punishable.

In a landmark judgment delivered on March 21, 1996, the Supreme Court of India, in a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Justice J.S. Verma, decisively upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 306 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), rejecting the notion that the ‘right to die’ is included within the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The appeals arose from convictions under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide, with petitioners challenging the constitutionality of both Sections 306 and 309 IPC on grounds including violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The challenge gained momentum after a two-judge bench ruling in P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994), which had declared Section 309 (attempt to commit suicide) unconstitutional, reasoning that the ‘right to life’ under Article 21 also encompassed the ‘right to die’.

The Constitution Bench undertook a detailed examination of Article 21, which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty, and the penal provisions in question. The Court held that the right to life is a natural right that protects the continuance of life with dignity but does not include any right to extinguish life. Suicide, being an unnatural termination of life, is incompatible with the concept of the ‘right to life’. The Court rejected the analogy drawn in the P. Rathinam case comparing the right to life with other fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech or association, stating that the negative aspect of those rights (such as the right not to speak or not to associate) does not equate to a right to end life itself.

The Bench further clarified that the ‘right to live with human dignity’ includes the right to a dignified life up to the natural end, and even the right to die with dignity at the end of natural life (such as in terminal illness), but this cannot be conflated with the right to prematurely terminate life through suicide.

Addressing the constitutional challenge under Article 14 (equality before the law), the Court found no merit in the contention that Sections 306 and 309 IPC are arbitrary or discriminatory. It noted that sentencing under these provisions is discretionary and compassionate measures are often employed by courts, including benefits under probation laws. The Court also distinguished between the offences under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 309 (attempt to commit suicide), emphasizing that Section 306 enacts a distinct offence punishable independently of Section 309.

The judgment also referenced international perspectives, including the UK’s Suicide Act of 1961, which decriminalizes suicide but penalizes abetment of suicide and attempted suicide, underscoring the societal interest in preventing assisted suicides. The Court cited foreign jurisprudence to highlight that while euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide remain contentious, the State has a legitimate interest in regulating assisted suicide.

Consequently, the Constitution Bench overruled the P. Rathinam decision and restored the constitutional validity of Sections 306 and 309 IPC. The Court’s verdict preserves the criminality of abetment and attempt of suicide, underscoring the State’s role in safeguarding life and deterring assisted suicide.

The appeals were remanded to the appropriate Division Bench for adjudication on merits, with Sections 306 and 309 IPC treated as constitutionally valid.

This judgment constitutes a significant pronouncement on the legal and constitutional understanding of the ‘right to life’ under Article 21, clarifying that it does not encompass a ‘right to die’, thereby impacting the legal framework governing suicide and its abetment in India.

Statutory provisions: Indian Penal Code, Sections 306, 309; Constitution of India, Articles 14, 21

Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 41121