Euthanasia and the Right to Die in India: Constitutional Dimensions and Judicial Evolution

Abstract

Background: A person having a constitutionally judicable right or privilege to control the conditions and timing of their own death, especially where that person is faced with an irreversible terminal illness, or a severe neurological disorder, or a permanent unconscious state of being, is one of the most hotly disputed interface of biomedical ethics, basic rights jurisprudence and the capability of parliament to act in such situations under Indian constitutional law.

Objectives: To implement a vigorous constitutional and judicial review of the developing death-with-dignity framework in India; to analyze the doctrinal value of Harish Rana v. Union of India (2026) as the first judicial review of implementing the Common Cause model to a specified patient in a definite factual grid.

Case Laws: The Harish Rana decision (2026) propounded three legal propositions that interrelate to each other: first, that Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) is medical treatment, which can be withdrawn legally; second, that a best-interest determination should involve both substituted and non-clinical factors; and lastly, that the State has an institutional duty to establish district-level Medical Boards. Despite all these developments, there are still critical gaps in implementation such as insignificant level of public awareness on Advance Directives, incomplete state of the palliative care ecosystem, and the still lacking governing law.

Conclusion: Although some degree of jurisprudential maturity has been achieved in the constitutional structure of India, the practicality of achieving the right to die with dignity has failed to achieve structural correctness, leaving most of the terminally ill individuals without the opportunity of enjoying a dignified death. Parliamentary laws--enactment of which, under the joint influence of Common Cause and Harish Rana has become constitutionally binding--can no longer be considered as a wise reform; it has taken the quality of a constitutional imperative.