GIAN KAUR V.
STATE OF PUNJAB
-SIMRAN KARAMCHANDANI
JUDGES:
VERMA JAGDISH SARAN (J)
RAY G.N. (J)
SINGH N.P. (J)
FAIZAN UDDIN (J)
NANAVATI G.T. (J)
PETITIONER: SMT. GIAN KAUR
RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF PUNJAB
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/03/1996
CITATION: 1996 AIR 946SCC (2) 648
STATUE:
1)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
2)Constitution of India
PROVISIONS INVOLVED:
1)Section 306 and Section 309 of Indian Penal Code,1860
2)Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution.
FACTS: Gian Kaur and her husband Harbans Singh were convicted by a Trial Court under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to six years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- for abetting the suicide by Ms. Kulwant Kaur. Section 306 punishes anyone who abets the commission of suicide, while Section 309 punishes anyone who attempts to commit suicide.
ISSUES:
1) Whether article 21 of the constitution involves right to die or not.
2) Whether or not the petitioner should be punished under section 306 and 309 of IPC.
ARGUMENTS: It was argued that, as held in P. Rathinam v. Union of India, the Article 21 right to life includes the right to die. So, a person abetting suicide is merely assisting in the enforcement of Article 21.
JUDGEMENT: The five-judge Constitutional Bench had held that “Right to Life” under Article 21 of Indian Constitution does not include the “Right to die”. The supreme Court asserts that "Right to life" also includes the right to a dignified life till one reaches the point of death, including a dignified procedure of death, thus it includes the right of a dying man to also die with dignity when his life is ebbing out. The Court ensured that the “Right to die” with dignity at the end of an individual’s life must not be misunderstood with the “Right to die” in an unnatural manner of death.
As held in P. Rathinam v. Union of India, the Article 21 right to life includes the right to die, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court overruled P. Rathinam.
CONCLUSION:
In my opinion, the Supreme Court rightly upheld the constitutionality of the section 309 of the penal code, 1860. Even the Indian Constitution gives the right to life under article 12, which reads as- No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Hence, this right cannot be used to nullify the other rights of himself. However, this landmark case itself has amounted to number of dynamics as to how Article 21 that is right to life also includes the right to suicide. Even though, several judgements have been passed by the Supreme courts concerning to the matter discussed, many decisions are left to be taken to clarify the matter.
This case in particular has left a powerful impact on the citizens of the country, leading various people to socio-political debates in the entire nation.
PRECEDENT:
1) P. Rathinam v Union of India (1994 AIR 1844 SCC (3) 394)
0 Comments