This particularly implies that as such the human being has the right not to be killed by another human being.

One of the controversial issues in this aspect in the recent past has been the legalization of passive euthanasia 1 in the country.

According to Black Laws Dictionary, euthanasia is the act or practice of killing or bringing about the death of a person who suffers from incurable diseases for reasons of mercy, also termed as mercy killing.

The Bill was criticized on the ground that such a law if passed will lead to its arbitrary use.

Again, an attempt was made by Mr.

B.V. Patil in the Lok Sabha in 1985.

Indeed, even after Aruna Shanbaug case, the then Law Minister Mr.

Veerappa Moily expressed the need of a serious debate in this matter and also agreed with the Supreme Court.

A person can be deprived of his life and personal liberty if two conditions are complied with, first, there must be law and secondly, there must be procedure prescribed by that law, provided which should be fair, and reasonable.

The court also attempted to distinguish between suicide and mercy killing, thereby striking down Section 309 13 of IPC, 1960 as unconstitutional.

It was further observed that right to life including the right to live with human dignity would mean the existence of such right up to the end of natural life whereas euthanasia has been described as a way of accelerating the process of natural death which has already commenced.

It was also held that permitting termination of life in such cases to reduce the suffering during the process of natural death cannot be included under Article 21 as it curtails the natural span of life.

Hence, the court did not allow passive euthanasia to be legalised and sections 306 and 309 of IPC were held to be valid and constitutional.

It laid down the safeguards to be observed in the case of a terminally ill patient who is unable to signify consent due to physical or mental predicaments, thereby permitting passive euthanasia in exceptional circumstances only where the prior approval of the high court has to be sought to adopt such a course and the court in turn has to take the opinion of three medical experts in this regard.

Thus it is ultimately on the court to decide as parens patria as to what is in the best interest of the patient.

An individual has a right to decide how he chooses to live his life without interference from others, thereby expressing his choice as a fundamental principle underlying the right to live with dignity.

As such the legalization of passive euthanasia relieves a terminally ill person from a lingering death.

It has been argued many a times that such legalization would lead to its arbitrary use but every right granted involves a risk of it being abused which does not mean that the right should be denied to the people.

The court in 2011 recognized passive euthanasia in Aruna Shanbaug case by which it had allowed withdrawal of treatment from patients who are not in a position to make an informed decision.

Active Euthanasia involves positioning individuals to death for humane reasons, as when a doctor uses a lethal dose of treatment to a patient.

It is basically the active acceleration of a death by use of drugs, whether by oneself or with the aid of a doctor.

Constitutional Law By Jn Pandey Pdf