Continuing treatment against the wishes of a patient is not only a violation of the principle of informed consent, but also of bodily privacy and bodily integrity that have been recognised as a facet of privacy by the Supreme Court decision.

This petition was brought by Common Cause, a registered society, which sought a declaration that the right to die with dignity formed a part of the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. It further sought directions to the State to adopt appropriate procedures to allow persons who were of deteriorated health or who were terminally ill to execute Advance Medical Directives or living wills. This writ petition sought a declaration that the “right to die with dignity” fell within the fold of “right to live with dignity” under Article 21, and to ensure that persons of deteriorated health or terminally ill could execute a living will or an Advance Medical Directive. The Petitioner argued that the concept of sustenance of individual autonomy was inherent in the right to privacy and also formed a part of the conception of liberty. Keeping a patient in a persistent vegetative state through advanced medical methods prolonged pain and suffering and allowed intrusion upon the patient’s autonomy and dignity. The right to die with dignity was linked to the right to live with dignity. It also pleaded that to refuse unwanted medical treatment was a common law right and that a person could not be forced to take medical treatment without their consent. The Respondent argued that the right to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 referred to the availability of food, shelter and health and did not include the right to die with dignity. The Court reaffirmed that the right to die with dignity was a fundamental right, as declared by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Kaur. The Court also clarified that the ratio of Gian Kaur did not introduce the concept of passive euthanasia. In relation to the topic of living wills, the Court held that there was clear indication of the acceptance of the concept of Advance Medical Directives in this country. It further stated that the right to execute an Advance Medical Directive was a step towards the protection of the right to self-determination and bodily integrity. In the case of patients who were unable to take an informed position on the matter, a ‘best-interest’ position could be applied, allowing a guardian to step in and take this decision on their behalf. The Court opined that the right to privacy mandated safeguarding the integrity of individual choice in the intimate sphere of decisions relating to death and held that the protection of these rights was an emanation of the right to privacy, as they were related to the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.