Open Access Research Article
CENTRIC APPROACH TO RIGHT TO DIE: SPECIAL REFERENCE TO GIAN KAUR V. STATE OF PUNJAB – BY KRISHNARDHULA SARUYU
Published Paper
Article Details
CENTRIC
APPROACH TO RIGHT TO DIE: SPECIAL REFERENCE TO GIAN KAUR V. STATE OF PUNJAB
AUTHORED BY –
KRISHNARDHULA
SARUYU
ABSTRACT:
The most basic and important Fundamental Right is
Right to Live with dignity, which is laid down under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution. Right to die, i.e., suicide is a crime under Section 309 if
Indian Penal Code, 1860. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab is the first case that
turned the tables around and articulated that Right to live doesn’t include
right to die in 1996. Till 1996, The Court of Law, held in various cases, that
Right to live includes Right to Die.
INTRODUCTION:
Section 309 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with
suicide and its punishment. It lays down that when a person commits suicide,
i.e., killing themselves, then they are subjected to an imprisonment which may
extend to a term of 1 year, or fine, or both. Section 306 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 deals with Abetment to suicide along with its punishment. It articulates
that any person who abets, i.e., influences another human being to commit
suicide, then they are liable to imprisonment which may extend to term of 10 years and fine. Article 21 of
Indian Constitution deals with Right to life and personal liberty, which also
include Right to live with dignity.
PARTIES
INVOLVED:
Kulwant Singh: Daughter – in – Law
Gian Kaur: Mother – in- Law
Harbans Singh: Father – in – Law
FACTS:
·
Kulwant Singh was married to the son of Gian Kaur and Harbans Singh.
Ever since their marriage, the Daughter – in – law was being continuously
abused by her in laws and were often asking her to commit suicide by saying
mean things to her.
·
The Daughter – in – Law approached the police station and the case was
taken up to the Trial Court. The Trial Court held that Gian Kaur and her
husband Harbans Singh liable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
were sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 6 years along with Rs. 2,000
fine.
·
Gian Kaur, aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court approached High
Court via Article 226 to quash the order passed by the lower Court, i.e., 6
years imprisonment along with Rs. 2,000.
·
The Judgment given by High Court was against Gian Kaur and supported
the decision taken by the Trial Court. However, the term of imprisonment
reduced from 6 years to 3 years.
·
Gian Kaur was still not satisfied with the Judgment of the High Court.
They appealed to the Supreme Court and the case was put to hearing in front of
a Five Bench Judge.
·
The main prayer of the Appellant was to declare Section 209 of Indian
Penal Code null and void as in the previous cases, Section 209 was held as
unconstitutional
ISSUES:
·
Whether Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is constitutionally
valid?
·
Whether Section 309 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 violates Article 14 and
21 of the Indian Constitution?
BACKGROUND OF
THE CASE:
In 1985, State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Bhatia was put to
hearing in front of the Delhi High Court Division Bench. The Hon’ble Bench held
that the continuance of Section 309 IPC is an anachronism unworthy of human
society like the current one. The question of the constitutional validity with
reference to provisions under Constitution was not considered.
In 1988, Chenna Jagadeeswar and another Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh was put forth for hearing in front of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court Division Bench. The Constitutional validity of Section 309 and right to
die is included in right to life was rejected.
In 1994, P. Rathinam vs. Union of India and Anr. was
put to hearing in front of the Bench of two learned Judges of Court. The
Division Bench rejected the challenge of the constitutional validity of Section
309 based on Article 14, but, however, they upheld the challenge on the basis
of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Bench held that Right to live includes
Right to die and held that Section 309 is constitutionally invalid.
CONTENTIONS OF
THE APPELLANTS:
The Appellants insisted that there was no abetment
to suicide and that their choice of conviction is erroneous. They also
contended that they were just motivating their Daughter – in – Law to exercise
her Fundamental Right of Right to die under Article 21. They stressed and
presented their arguments completely based on the Judgment given in P. Rathinam
v. Union of India case that Section 309 is in violation of Article 14 and
Article 21 of Indian Constitution. One of the major and directly raised point
by the appellants was that as Right to die includes Right to live, they cannot
be punished for the commission of their fundamental Right
CONTENTIONS OF
THE RESPONDENTS:
The Respondents put forth that the charges against
the appellants were correct and are valid as Section 306 is constitutionally
valid. The Respondents contended that Section 306 and Section 309 of IPC were
different from each other and grooved different offences and that Section 306
can survive with Section 309 of IPC. The Respondents laid down that Article 21
can't be construed to incorporate the right to die as it guarantees protection
of life and liberty due to which it can't possess a negative connotation of
giving a right to its extinction and that there was no merit within the
argument put forth by the appellants' supporting Article 14 because there was
satisfactory discretion given to Courts.
JUDGMENT:
·
The Hon’ble Court held that Article 21 of Constitution of India states
“Right to life and personal liberty” and does not include Right to Die or Right
to Kill because it is against the nature or rule of God. It also held that no
person has the Right to speed up the process of death. Thus, Section 309 of the
IPC does not violate Articles 21 and 14 and are constitutionally valid.
·
The Court also observed and put forth the difference between Right to
die and Right to die with dignity. The Hon’ble Bench held that everyone has the
Right to die with dignity but not the Right to die or kill themselves.
·
This case overruled the Judgment passed in the case of P. Rathinam v.
Union of India.
CONCLUSION:
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab still stands as a
landmark Judgment in relation to Article 21. It emphasized on the importance of
a Human’s life and held that committing suicide and anyone who abets to commit
suicide are serious offences under Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Article Information
CENTRIC APPROACH TO RIGHT TO DIE: SPECIAL REFERENCE TO GIAN KAUR V. STATE OF PUNJAB – BY KRISHNARDHULA SARUYU
Authors: KRISHNARDHULA SARUYU
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2022/11/07
- Volume 2
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.