India's passive euthanasia framework, built entirely through judicial interpretation, exposes the gap between constitutional rights and legislative action.

Q. India's passive euthanasia framework, built entirely through judicial interpretation, exposes the gap between constitutional rights and legislative action. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The Supreme Court has read the right to die with dignity into Article 21, yet Parliament has enacted no law on it. India's passive euthanasia regime is therefore wholly judge-made — a genuine rights advance that simultaneously records a legislative default.

Evolution of a judge-made right - Gian Kaur (1996) denied a right to suicide but carved out dignity in natural death; Aruna Shanbaug (2011) first permitted passive euthanasia in a persistent vegetative state under High Court supervision [2]. - Common Cause (2018), a five-judge Constitution Bench, held the right fundamental, legalised Advance Medical Directives, and framed procedures expressly binding until Parliament legislates [1]. - The Court itself relaxed those procedures in 2023, deleting mandatory High Court referral in uncontested cases [3]. - Harish Rana (2026) operationalised the guidelines for the first time, allowing withdrawal of CANH under AIIMS Delhi's palliative care supervision [4].

The legislative gap it exposes - No statute: a draft Bill on medical treatment of terminally-ill patients circulated by the Health Ministry was never enacted; the UK, by contrast, legislated the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 [5]. - Executive substitution: gaps are filled by MoHFW guidelines on withdrawal of life support rather than by law, leaving medical boards without statutory backing or clear immunity [6]. - Case-by-case relief: Rana's family waited nearly 13 years — a right enjoyable only through litigation is unevenly available [4]. - Capacity deficit: few hospitals hold palliative units able to manage a structured withdrawal [4].

A qualified defence of the judicial route - Court-designed safeguards — two-tier medical boards, the best-interest test, judicial oversight — have contained misuse in a morally contested field [1]. - Incremental rulings permitted calibrated movement where the legislature stayed silent, while active euthanasia remains firmly illegal [1].

The Rana ruling is thus both achievement and indictment: dignity was delivered by the Court because the legislature did not act. Parliament should now codify advance directives, medical board procedure and physician protection, supported by an expanded National Programme for Palliative Care, so that dying with dignity becomes an ordinary entitlement rather than an extraordinary remedy.

(~325 words)

Sources: 1. Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India, judgment dated 9 March 2018, Supreme Court of India — right to die with dignity under Article 21, Advance Medical Directives, procedural guidelines binding pending legislation, safeguards against misuse 2. Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011), Supreme Court of India — first conditional permission for passive euthanasia in PVS with High Court supervision; Gian Kaur carve-out 3. Common Cause v. Union of India (2023), Digital Supreme Court Reports — modification of the 2018 guidelines, removing mandatory High Court referral 4. Harish Rana v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 222, judgment dated March 2026 — first implementation of the 2018 guidelines; withdrawal of CANH; AIIMS Delhi palliative care supervision; ~13 years in PVS 5. The Medical Treatment of Terminally-Ill Patients (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) draft Bill, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare — proposed but unenacted legislative framework 6. Guidelines for Withdrawal of Life Support in Terminally Ill Patients, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare — executive guidelines and medical board procedure operating in place of a statute