Title: Gian Kaur vs The State of Punjab

Court: Supreme Court, Punjab High Court

Citation: 1996 SCC (2) 648

Decided on: 21^st March, 1996

Coram: J.S. Verma, G.N. Ray, N.P. Singh, Faizan Uddin, and G.T. Nanavati JJ.

Introduction:

Gian Kaur was the widow of a soldier who died while in service. She, along with her mother, was charged with abetting the suicide of her husband. The case raised the constitutional validity of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes the attempt to commit suicide. The petitioner argued that the right to life, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, includes the right to die with dignity. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the right to life also encompasses the right to terminate one’s own life.

Facts:

Gian Kaur and her husband Harbans Singh were accused in this case of encouraging their daughter-in-law “Kulwant Kaur” to commit suicide in violation of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The couple had boldly splashed their daughter-in-law with kerosene, and they fervently wanted to see her die. Their goal was to marry their son to a different woman who could provide them with a dowry. The Trial Court found them both guilty of their actions in accordance with Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

They were given a six-year sentence of rigorous imprisonment and were also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. If they failed to pay the fine, they would have been subject to another nine months of rigorous imprisonment. Furthermore, the appellants filed an appeal with the High Court, which upheld the Lower Court’s ruling affirming the appellants’ rights. Gian Kaur’s sentence, however, has been reduced from six years to three years of rigorous imprisonment. The Appellants petitioned the Supreme Court for Special Leave to overturn their conviction under Section 306 of the IPC.

Questions: 

1. Is Section 306 of IPC constitutionally valid?
2. Whether Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India is being violated by Section 309 of the IPC?
3. Is “Right to Die” included under article 21 of the constitution of India which deals with the “Right to Life”?

Judgement of the Court and Analysis:

The court determined that because section 309 of the IPC excluded the right to die from its purview, it did not infringe Article 21. Moreover, it was decided that it was neither arbitrary nor brutal enough to violate Article 14. The courts are allowed to use their good judgment when imposing penalties; neither a minimum penalty nor mandatory incarceration is mandated.

The court upheld section 306 of the IPC, stating that since section 309 is constitutional and the right to die does not fall under Article 21, there is no basis for section 306 to be unlawful as well. In addition, section 306 will remain in effect even in the absence of section 309 since aiding and abetting and planning to murder are two distinct crimes.

The court also ruled that the right to death is not part of the right to life. It ensures the preservation of life, and consequently the right to live with honour till the end of one’s natural life as well as the right to a respectable funeral. But it excludes the ending of life via artificial methods, therefore suicide is not an honourable way to pass away. The argument that the freedom of expression encompasses the right to remain silent is inapplicable in the context of Article 21.

The court ruled that ending a person’s life prematurely is not within the bounds of the right to live with human dignity. Article 21, which guarantees the right to die with dignity, may apply to a person who is terminally sick or in a chronic vegetative state, but this argument is not applicable in this particular situation. Therefore, it was decided that the euthanasia argument was unnecessary. As to the court’s ruling, the legislature has the authority to decide whether or not to remove a provision that was recommended by a law commission. The legislature cannot request that the court rule the provision unconstitutional. A provision’s validity is often only contested by the pertinent sections of the constitution.

Debate about the constitutionality of the right to die has persisted for a long time. The five-judge bench in Gian Kaur declared that the right to life extended beyond the measurement of an animal’s existence. It encompassed the right to a dignified life during one’s natural course as well as the right to a dignified funeral.

On the other hand, the right to life does not entail the right to end one’s life in an unethical manner, such as by suicide. Moreover, the court determined that aiding and abetting suicide are distinct crimes, which might be highly relevant. Nobody has the right to force someone to take his life, and it cannot be justified by claiming that it is just helping to uphold a basic human right.

Therefore, whether or not Section 309 of the IPC is valid, aiding and abetting suicide is still a horrible crime. Furthermore, it’s a common misconception that India, as a state, is better suited to protect the lives of its people. It is against the state constitution to create a law that promotes the killing of its citizens.

In terms of euthanasia, the court decided that a patient in a persistent vegetative condition could have the right to pass away under certain circumstances in a dignified manner. was further emphasized in a 2018 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Common Cause v. Union of India. Consequently, the ruling in Gian Kaur’s case is still seen as significant and good judgment.

The Supreme Court of India

Written by: Akshaya Zavar

Unfold Law – Best law firm in Bangalore, Best criminal lawyer