“Whether an individual has a right to die, as they have a right to live” is the question that the case raised. The case concerned two petitions that P. Rathinam (Petitioner 1) and Nagbhushan Patnaik (Petitioner 2) concurrently submitted. In their individual petitions, they claimed that Article 21 and Article 14 of the Indian Constitution were violated by section 309 of the indian penal code, 1860. A two-judge Supreme Court bench heard the arguments, and on April 26, 1994, the court issued its decision.
p rathinam v union of india Case Facts
- The petitioner attempted suicide as a result of an uncontrolled situation that had emerged. A lawsuit was filed against the petitioner in accordance with section 306 of indian penal code.
- By submitting a writ petition to the Supreme Court of India, the petitioner challenged this action by contesting the constitutionality of section 309 of the indian penal code in in view of article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
p rathinam v union of india Issues
- Whether Section 309 of the IPC is violated by Articles 14 and 21 or not?
- Is Article 21 entirely negative or does it contain some positive content?
- Does IPC Section 309 need to be declared invalid or not?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Ranjan Dwivedi and R. Venkataramani represented the petitioners. The petitioners argued that because Section 309 punishes someone who is already suffering, requires mental counseling, and hasn’t harmed anybody else, it is cruel and unreasonable.
- Suicide attempt is neither morally wrong, nor is it against the law, public policy, or society. Maintaining Section 309 would grant the state the exclusive authority to take human life, potentially resulting in “constitutional cannibalism.”
- The petitioner also included a copy of the second paragraph of the General section of The Suicide Act, 1961, which repeals the legal provision that makes suicide a criminal.
- A xerox copy of the Law Commission of India’s 42nd report from 1971, which suggested eliminating section 309, was another document that was provided.
Respondent:
- On behalf of the Union of India, the learned counsel contended that suicide is against public policy.
- The preservation of human life was not as important to him as public policies.
- The attorney cited a case of a criminal who received the death penalty as evidence that it is applied to set society free and unafraid of bad ideas. The state’s action in this case is justified since it punishes lawbreakers in accordance with public policies and doesn’t hesitate to take a person’s life.
p rathinam v union of india Judgment
- The Respondent’s principal argument was that suicide was unethical and against public policy. The judges noted that morality has no set boundaries and that it would be too risky to declare categorically that suicide is an immoral act in and of itself.
- Charges of immorality cannot and should not be made against individuals who, like a large portion of our population, believe that ending a miserable life is preferable to enduring more humiliation or torture. This is because a large portion of our population is treated inhumanely, which may be partially caused by the wrongdoing of others.
- The bench further clarified that as Sections 306 and 309 are two completely separate provisions that do not depend on one another to exist, the invalidation of Section 309 does not undermine the legality of Section 306.
- Section 306 addresses aiding and abetting suicide, which will always be illegal. The right to end one’s own life belongs to the individual, not to anyone else.
- The court ruled that Section 309 had to be repealed only in order to globalize our laws, that is, to make them more in line with the legal systems of other progressive nations, and to humanize our laws.
- The bench decided that in order to humanize our criminal laws, Section 309 of the Penal Code should be removed from the statute book based on the rulings and observations mentioned above. This provision is unreasonable and cruel, as it could lead to the punishment of an individual who has endured suffering and shame for not taking his own life.
Article 21 is a collection of uncountable laws that are undoubtedly meant to be considered welfare laws. Time is the measure, and after some time, it is redefined to demonstrate its flexibility and evergreen nature. The article primarily offers a judicial interpretation of the laws that are incorporated for the benefit of the general public. One of the strongest legal provisions that calls for judicial discretion is Article 21. The efficacy with which article 21 can be put into practice is stated in the ruling that section 309 of the IPC is in violation of that article.
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
