Skip to main content

Right To Die

 Right To Die

 According to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution of 1950 no person shall be deprived of his or her life or personal liberty unless in accordance with the procedures established by law.

The Supreme Court of India concluded in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India that the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is not only a physical right, but it also encompasses the right to live with human dignity as part of its purview. The case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India contains another another comprehensive formulation of the right to live with dignity, in which it characterises Article 21 as the "heart of basic rights." In this judgement, Justice Bhagwati stated that it is the fundamental right of every citizen of India to live with human dignity, free of exploitation, and that this is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.

The right to life encompasses the right to live in accordance with human dignity, which means that such a right must exist until the end of natural life is reached. It is a fundamental natural right of human beings, a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which is found in Part III of the Constitution. The subject of whether the right to life encompasses the right to die or the right to choose not to live has been discussed in a number of situations.

Death is defined as the cessation of life and can be divided into two categories:

Death as a result of natural causes

Unnatural causes of death

The desire for death is completely reasonable for a human being when his or her existence becomes unbearably agonising and terrible in comparison to death itself. In the case of Common Cause vs. Union of , when establishing the relationship between life and death, the Honorable Justice DY Chandrachud declared that life and death are inextricably linked. On every single day of our existence, our bodies are subjected to a process of constant change. A large number of cells die as new ones regenerate, demonstrating that life is not divorced from death. To be is to die, in the same way that death is the sole certainty that exists in life. A philosophical standpoint holds that life and death are indistinguishable from one another and that both are necessary parts in the unstoppable cycle of existence.

Examining the concept of the right to die

Following the Hohfeldian approach to this right, the jural correlatives that are brought to the query will be right and duty, with each right having a corresponding obligation in accordance with the principle of Hohfeldian analysis of rights. This alludes to the idea that if X has the right to die, then Y has the obligation to murder him, which, as we all know, is not always the case. The murdering or murder of another person is criminal under sections 300 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which was enacted in 1860. And it becomes necessary to consider what constitutes the right to die in this context:

The Indian judiciary looked into this topic and discovered a number of cases that dealt with Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with the instigation of suicide, among other things. Following the foregoing logic, if the right to die means that X has the right to commit suicide and that Y will be obligated to assist him in doing so, this is not the correct conclusion to reach.

It is only seriously ill patients or their families that have the authority to determine whether to withdraw life support and allow the person to die quietly and with dignity in India, according to the country's legal definition. If X has the right to die with dignity once he has been diagnosed with an incurable illness, then Y or the state has the obligation to allow him to exercise that right.

The state of India has overturned Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (1860), declaring it to be arbitrary, and as a result, it has removed the previous sentence for persons who attempted suicide. The state does not encourage suicide; rather, it simply refrains from criminalising it while taking into consideration issues relating to mental health and well-being. According to a philosopher named John Locke, every individual has the right to life, liberty, and property. Following the same logic, arguments arise that if an individual has been granted the absolute right to life, then that individual must also be granted the right to choose to die or end their life in the event of illness or other circumstances beyond their control.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more