Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The petitioner has then referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab AIR 1996 SC 1257 : 1996 Cri LJ 1660. The petitioner has also referred to the decisions of some of the High Courts on the question, but his regret is that the said decisions do not consider the distinction between what is commonly understood as suicide and the right of a person to take a decision regarding voluntarily putting an end to one's life which he says is - an inalienable part of the right to life. The petitioner, therefore, contends that notwithstanding the decision of the Apex Court in Gian Kaur's case, the distinction between "suicide" as commonly understood, and the right to voluntarily terminate one's life needs to be considered by this Court. The petitioner then claims to have approached some of the medical institutions under the control of the State Government, including the District Hospital, Thirssur, seeking help to facilitate his voluntary death and for donation of his organs, including heart, kidneys, eyes, etc. However, his request was not taken seriously and he was told that none of the hospitals under the State Government has such facilities to enable the petitioner to voluntarily cause his death, which would, not be suicide. '

6. O.P. No. 21470 of 1998 is filed by Mr. Mukundan Pillai. He is 69 year old with B.A. degree in Economics, He was a teacher, who later on acquired B.Ed. degree and retired as Headmaster. Thereafter he was the Principal of N.S.S. Public School, Thiruvanthapuram. The petitioner, his wife, as well as his daughter and her family are leading happy life. He claims to be in good physical and mental condition. He also states that though he is 69 years old, he is absolutely contented and believes that his mission in life is fulfilled. He has no further impetus to live any longer. This petition also, being drafted by the same learned counsel, contains similar averments as in O.P. No. 11596 of 1998, which are summarised above. The petitioner also refers to the decisions of the various High Courts and of the Apex Court in Gian Kaur's case 1996 Cri LJ 1660 and similar reliefs are prayed for in this petition; the principal being for the issuance of directions to the respondents to start "Mahaprasthana Kendra" (Voluntary Death Clinic) so as to facilitate voluntary death and donation/transplantation of bodily organs.

9. In fairness to the learned counsel, Dr. Vincent Panikulangara, it must be stated that his main emphasis was on the distinction between suicide commonly understood, and the right to voluntarily terminate one's life. According to him, the Apex Court has not considered this distinction while laying down the law in Gian Kaur's case 1996 Cri LJ 1660. It must also be stated at the outset that petitioners are not concerned with the constitutional validity of the provisions of Sections 306 and 309 of the IPC, 1860. Section 306 makes abetment of suicide punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and such a person is also liable to fine. The section obviously contemplates a completed act of suicide which has been abetted by someone. Section 309 deals with the attempt to commit suicide. Where a person does any act towards the commission of such offence, or makes any attempt to commit suicide, he can be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both. In view of the fact that a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court had occasion to consider the question of the validity of the said provisions on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and the same having been upheld, learned counsel did not address us on the question of constitutionality of either Section 306 or Section 309 of the IPC. The whole emphasis of the petitioners was that this Court should embark upon a novel experiment of directing the respondents to set up voluntary death clinics to facilitate persons exercising their right of voluntarily terminating their life, which, according to petitioners, is not suicide. Towards this end, petitioners want us to issue a requisite direction, including a direction for providing requisite finance, so that infrastructure is made available for setting up of such voluntary death clinics in each of the Districts in the State of Kerala.

10. In his attempt to persuade us to grant the above mentioned reliefs, petitioners criticised the judgment of the Apex Court in Gian Kaur's case 1996 Cri LJ 1660 as being unduly influenced by the principles of Anglo Saxon Jurisprudence, overlooking the ancient Indian texts like Manu's Smrithy. The petitioners distinguished the question of euthanasia from suicide and emphasised the distinction between suicide and the right to voluntarily terminate one's life. Before dealing with the decision in Gian Kaur's case, we would like to refer to a few definitions.