Death with Dignity: Judicial Recognition and the Evolving Right to Die Jurisprudence in India

Abstract

The Constitutional recognition of the Right to Die with Dignity has fundamentally reshaped the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, raising a critical question: does the constitutional guarantee of life extend to protecting dignity at its natural end? While Indian constitutional jurisprudence has progressively embraced the values of human dignity, bodily autonomy, privacy and self-determination, the legal framework governing end-of-life decision- making continues to evolve through judicial intervention rather than legislative action. This paper examines the constitutional foundations of the Right to Die with Dignity and traces its judicial evolution through P. Rathinam v. Union of India1, Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab2, Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India3, Common Cause v. Union of India4, and Harish Rana v. Union of India (2026) 5 . It analyses the constitutional principles of dignity, bodily autonomy, informed consent, privacy, constitutional morality and examines the legal distinction between active and passive euthanasia and the recognition of Advance Medical Directives; and evaluates the practical and institutional challenges that continue to affect the implementation of end-of-life rights. The study demonstrates that while judicial interpretation has firmly embedded the Right to Die with Dignity within Article 21, the absence of a comprehensive statutory framework continues to impede its uniform and effective enforcement. It concludes that meaningful constitutional protection requires a coherent legislative framework capable of harmonising constitutional guarantees, medical ethics, institutional accountability, and patient autonomy.