The Limitations of Article 21: Right to Life or Right to Die?
constitutional mh_cet_law advanced discussionLog kya kahenge? In my internship, I saw how the courts kept arguing over this. So, I thought, let's discuss. Article 21 of our Constitution is the foundation of the Right to Life, but when does this 'life' stop? Is it just the physical life or does it also include a dignified death? The courts are struggling with this concept in cases like Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India (2011). My take is, if an individual is suffering unbearably and their life has lost all value, isn't it our duty to let them go? I'd argue in favor of the right to die, but others might say, no way, this is against Hinduism and Sikhism (don't even get me started on that). What's your take?
1 comments
1 Comments
Sign in to join the discussion.
Important Point to Note: While Article 21 ensures the right to life, its application in cases of euthanasia raises crucial questions. The SC's verdict in Aruna Shanbaug (2011) and P. Rathinam (1980) laid down certain principles for passive euthanasia. However, these verdicts are not a blanket permission for Euthanasia. A patient's living will, medical board's assessment, and judicial oversight are essential factors in these cases. The fine line between right to life and right to die still remains a contentious issue.