The Case of Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab (1996)

Is the ability to take one’s own life the ultimate manifestation of the “right to life” in a society that values that right so highly? Imagine the anguish of living in a society where you may be imprisoned for merely trying to escape intolerable pain. To put this in context, think of this: India recorded over 130,000 suicides in 2019 alone, according to the National Crime Records Bureau, underscoring the urgent need to address mental health and legal challenges surrounding this delicate subject. Does the right to a dignified death come with the right to life? Does this imply that anyone who support or facilitate such behaviour should likewise be immune from legal consequences?

gian kaur vs state of Punjab case Facts

• Gian Kaur and her spouse Harbans Singh were found guilty of aiding and abetting their daughter-in-law’s suicide.
• The section 306 of Indian penal code found them both guilty. They were sentenced to a strict six-year jail term and a fine of Rs. 2,000. If the appellant is unable to pay the fee, their sentence would be prolonged by nine months.
• The appellant appealed to the High Court. It lowered the sentence from six years to three years and restated the court’s ruling.

gian kaur vs state of Punjab Issues

• Whether or if the “right to die” is covered by article 21 of the indian constitution, which deals with the “right to life”?
• Is section 306 of the indian penal code lawful under the Constitution?
• Are Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution violated by section 309 of the indian penal code of 1860?

Contentions by the Parties

Petitioner:

• The appellants contended that their conviction constituted an error in judgment. Furthermore, they asserted that assisting and abetting suicide was prohibited by section 306 of the IPC.
• The two argued that section 306 was unconstitutional in light of the court’s decision in the P. Rathinam case, which found that because section 306 recognized the right to die as a part of the right to life, it violated Article 21. According to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, a person who assists in suicide is merely helping to realize a basic right. As a result, Section 306, which forbids encouraging suicide, falls under Article 21’s misdemeanour category.
• The appellants further claimed that Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution were broken by Section 309. For this, they strongly relied upon the verdict in the P. Rathinam case. However, according to one of the two appellants’ attorneys, section 309 only violated article 14 and not article 21.

Respondent:

• The State, the respondent in this matter, requested that the Supreme Court sustain the rulings made by the trial court and the High Court.
• A compelling argument was made that Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which addresses aiding and abetting suicide attempts, is a stand-alone provision and should not be supported by Section 309 of the same act.
• Article 21 of the Constitution is not violated by Section 306, which is constitutional. It was argued that as Section 309 of the IPC is likewise constitutionally valid, the decision in the P. Rathinam v. Union of India case ought to be overturned.
• The “right to die” and the “right to life” are fundamentally incompatible, and it is not possible to argue that the right to die is covered by Article 21.

gian kaur vs state of Punjab judgment

• According to the court, the “right to life and personal liberty” guaranteed by article 21 of the indian constitution does not include the “right to kill” or “right to die” since doing so would be against God’s will or nature.
• Nobody is entitled to hasten the process of dying. Thus, Section 309 of the IPC does not infringe Articles 21 or 14. It is constitutionally valid as a result.
• If Section 306 is legitimate, then no Indian citizen may be penalized for attempting suicide; nevertheless, if someone is encouraging someone else to commit suicide, that person will be punished while keeping society’s interests in mind.
• As a result, the ruling in P. Rathinam v. UOI was overturned, and it was decided that Section 306 and section 309 of the indian penal code are constitutionally legitimate. This meant that both appellants would be held accountable for aiding and abetting suicide.

The ruling serves as a reminder of the continuous necessity to strike a balance between compassion and the law in order to protect people’s dignity and provide them with the care and assistance they require. It serves as a reminder that the rules that determine life and death must change over time to take into account our expanding knowledge of mental health, personal liberty, and human dignity. The decision does not rule out other legislative measures or societal changes that could take a more thorough approach to addressing these delicate concerns.

With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!

For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf