Passive Euthanasia and Article 21: Contemporary Legal, Moral, and Ethical Challenges to the Right to Die with Dignity

DOI - https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23041930

Abstract

The constitutional puzzle arose because of Indian law on persons in the end of life. On the one hand, it must prevent the premature death of patients, while on the other hand, it must respect the patient’s refusal of unburdening treatment. This article will observe how Article 21 tackles that challenge without allowing an unrestricted right to assisted death. By doctrinal analysis of Supreme Court rulings ending up in Harish Rana v Union of India in March 2026, it distinguishes between competent refusal, advance directives and best-interests decisions for non-communicating patients. As per this, procedural simplification may be necessary but not sufficient for meaningful autonomy; rather availability of information, independent clinical assessment, freedom from economic coercion and continuing palliative care is important. It is not “dignity vs the sanctity of life”, but whether either displaces the patient’s own interest that is the core ethical question. A defensible framework must include safeguards tailored to the decision in question, express protection that the decision will not be made on the basis of disability, and institutional responsibility for care both before and after withdrawal of treatment.

Keywords: Article 21; passive euthanasia; advance directives; patient autonomy; best interests; palliative care.