CASE COMMENT
Gian Kaur vs The State of Punjab on 21 March, 1996
Equivalent citation: 1996 AIR 946, 1996 SCC (2) 648
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench:Hon’ble Justice J.S. Verma, Hon’ble Justice N.P.
Singh, Hon’ble Justice Faizan Uddin, Hon’ble Justice G.T. Nanavati
PETITIONER………..
GIAN KAUR
Vs.
RESPONDENT……….. THE
STATE OF PUNJAB
JUDGEMENT ON
21st March 1996
BENCH
Hon’ble Justice J.S. Verma, Hon’ble Justice N.P. Singh, Hon’ble Justice
Faizan Uddin, Hon’ble Justice G.T. Nanavati
CITATION
1969 AIR
946, 1996 SCC (2) 648
INTRODUCTION
In Gian Kaur v The State of
Punjab case, the Supreme Court dealt with the question of the constitutional
validity of the offense of attempt to suicide under Section.309 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC),1860.
In this case, Gian Kaur and
her spouse Harbans Singh had been charged under Section 306 of the Indian Penal
Code,1860 for Abetting suicide of their daughter-in-law ‘Kulwant Kaur’. The duo
had dauntlessly poured kerosene on their daughter in law and they had a
clear-cut volition to see her dead. They wanted to get their son married to
another woman who can provide them dowry.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS
- Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which, provides for the offence of abetment of suicide.
- Section 309 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 which, states that everyone who survives an attempt to suicide
will be punished.
- Article 14 of the Indian Constitution which states that every person is equal in the eyes of equal.
- Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
which states that every person has a right to life and liberty.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether
section 306 of IPC is constitutionally valid?
- Whether
Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India is being violated
by Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code?
- Whether
“Right to Die ” is included under article 21 of the constitution of India
which deals with the “Right to Life”?
FACTS
The court had convicted the
duo, Gian Kaur, together with her husband Harbans Kaur, for the abetment of the
commission of suicide of Kulwant Kaur (daughter-in-law). They were convicted
under section 306 of Indian legal code, 1860 i.e. IPCand were sentenced to
rigorous imprisonment of seven years each. alongside this, they were
susceptible to pay a fine of Rs. 2000 and upon default an extra 9 months of
imprisonment was to be served.
Upon appeal to the supreme
court, their conviction was held valid, but the punishment for Gian Kaur was
changed to rigorous imprisonment of three years, rather than the sooner
rigorous imprisonment of seven years. The sentence of the husband, i.e. Harbans
Singh, was maintained because it was, without change. After the conviction was
upheld by the supreme court, the appellants filed a Special Leave Petition
within the Supreme Court of India challenging their conviction.
Also one of the assertions by
the appellant involved a substantive question of law on the constitutional
validity of section 306 of the Indian Penal Code challenged under article 21 of
the Indian Constitution and a reconsideration of its rendition in the P.
Rathinam case.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
- The
appellants contended that the choice of their conviction was erroneous.
They also said that there was no abetment for suicide under section 306 of
the Indian Penal Code(IPC).
- The
duo argued that section 306 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC) was
unconstitutional in regard to the legal judgment provided by the court in
P. Rathinam case wherein section 309 of IPC was held to be in violation of
Article 21 because it held that the Right to Life included the right to
die. Therefore if a person assists the commission of suicide merely
assists the consummation of fundamental right under article 21 of the
Indian Constitution. Hence, section 306 of the Indian Penal Code that
punishes for the abetment of suicide is equally in misdemeanor of article
21 of the Constitution of India.
- One
of the directly raised points by the appellants was that the inclusion of
the proper to die within the ambit of article 21 made section 306
unconstitutional as assistance within the commission of a fundamental
right can’t be punishable.
- The
appellants also contended that the Indian Penal Code(IPC) Section 309 was
also in violation of the Indian constitution under article 14 and article
21. For this, they strongly relied on the judgment given in P. Rathinam
case. However, out of the 2 counsels for the appellants, one believed that
section 309 only violated article 14 of the constitution and not article
21.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT
- The
respondent, i.e. the state, contended the choice of conviction be upheld
under section 306 of the IPC and sentences maintained.
- The
state counsels argued that section 306 and section 309 of the Indian Penal
Code were independent of each other and grooved different offenses. They
believed that section 306 can exist without section 309. Hence, section
306 isn’t invalid and not in violation of either article 14 or 21.
- One
of the counsel contended that “the desirability of deleting section 309
from the IPC can’t be ground to carry it constitutionally invalid” which
the purpose of euthanasia was irrelevant to choose its constitutional
validity.
- The
counsel contended that article 21 can’t be construed to incorporate the
right to die because it guarantees protection of life and liberty and can’t
mean to possess a negative connotation of giving a right to its
extinction. Further, there was no merit within the argument by the
appellants’ supporting article 14 as there was sufficient discretion given
to courts to use the supply pityingly in certain cases that require it.
Further, it had been asked that the choice given in P. Rathiram needed to
be reconsidered because it was invalid.
- Another
counsel contended that section 306 was independent of section 309 of IPC.
He didn’t support the choice in P. Rathiram to incorporate the “right to
die” under article 21 of the constitution, however, he supported the
conclusion that section 309 is unconstitutional because it was arbitrary
and barbaric. He was the opinion that it’s universally acknowledged that punishing
for attempted suicide is barbaric and hence in violation of section 14 of
the constitution.
JUDGEMENT
- The
court held that section 309 of IPC didn’t violate Article 21 as it did not
include the right to die within its ambit. Further, it had been held that
it didn’t violate Article 14 on the grounds of being either barbaric or
arbitrary. Good discretion has been given to the courts in giving
sentences and it doesn’t prescribe any minimum punishment or makes
imprisonment compulsory. Accordingly, the court overruled the judgment in
the Rathinam case.
- The
court held section 306 to be valid on the grounds that because the right
to die wasn’t under the purview of article 21 and thus section 309 is not
unconstitutional, there was no reason for section 306 of IPC to be
unconstitutional either. Moreover, abetment to kill and plan to kill are
separate offenses and hence section 306 will exist even without section
309.
- The
court also held that the right to live doesn’t include the right to die.
It guarantees the protection of life and therefore the right to measure
with dignity until the natural course of life and also the right to a
dignified procedure after death. However, it doesn’t include the
extinction of life by unnatural means, suicide being an unnatural death,
and is not a dignified way. The analogy that the right to freedom of
speech includes the right to close up doesn’t apply within the case of
article 21.
- The
court held that the right to sustain with human dignity doesn’t encompass
the decorous to terminate the natural span of a person’s life. A
terminally ill person or a person during a persistent vegetative state may
need a right to die with dignity as a part of article 21 which provides
for the proper to measure with dignity, but this plea isn’t relevant
during this case. Hence the plea of euthanasia was held to be irrelevant.
- The
court said that the will to delete a provision supported the advice of a
law commission is for the legislature to make a decision and it can’t be
wont to ask the court to declare it unconstitutional. Only the relevant
provisions within the constitution are often wont to challenge the
constitutionality of a provision.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
The constitutional validity of
the right to die has been a topic of debate for an extended time. The question
first came up within the case of State of Maharashtra v Maruti Sripati Dubal[2]
in which the supreme court of Bombay held that the proper to die under article
21 of the constitution includes the proper to die and therefore the Honourable
supreme court struck down section 309 of IPC declaring it unconstitutional.
Later, the Supreme Court within the case of P. Rathiram supported the choice of
the Bombay supreme court. However, the constitutional bench constituted in the
Gian Kaur case overruled the previous decisions provided in the P.Rathiram
case.
In Gian Kaur, the 5 judge
bench said that the right to life wasn’t merely to measure an animal existence,
but was a right to measure a dignified life throughout the natural course of
one’s life and also includes a right to the dignified procedure after a
person’s death, however, it doesn’t mean the proper to finish life through
unnatural means like suicide. Further, the court also held that abetment to
suicide and plan to suicide is separate offenses, which may be a very pertinent
point. Nobody can have a rig someone to require his life, and it can’t be
condoned on the grounds that it’s merely assisting the fulfillment of a
fundamental right. Thus, abetment to suicide provided in Section 309 of IPC
remains a heinous crime regardless of its constitutionality. “Moreover, it is
often construed that India being a state is more centered and astounding to
guard the lives of its citizens. Constituting a statute that encourages the
death of its nationals is against the framework of the state.”
On the purpose of euthanasia,
the court held that during a situation of persistent vegetative state, the
patient may have a right to die under the proper to measure with dignity. now
was further reiterated during a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in 2018
i.e. Common Cause v Union of India. Thus, the decision given in the Gian Kaur’s
case remains relevant and thought of to be good judgment.
CONCLUSION
In India,
there are lots of fundamental rights, but no person has a right to end his/her
life. Attempt to suicide is a punishable offence as no one has a right to end
his life as it is against the natural process of death, Also no person may end
the life of another person by killing him or by abetting him to suicide as it’s
also against the nature.
Hence,
this case signifies the importance of life by validating section 309 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
0 Comments