Right to life is a basic right guaranteed to every citizen of India. In India the constitutional article 21 deals with it, as it states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except the procedure established by law

Regardless of caste, creed, or gender, this article guarantees everyone in India the right to life and personal freedom. It guarantees that no one's life or personal freedom can be taken away from them unless the legal process is followed. This means that any restriction on a person's right to life or personal freedom must be legal and follow a fair, just, and reasonable procedure.

Article 21 includes a right to a "dignified life," which includes the right to appropriate food, shelter, and healthcare as well as the right to be treated with respect and dignity throughout one's life.

The Indian judiciary has given broad interpretation to Article 21 and determined that it covers a number of additional rights, including the right to a clean and healthy environment, the right to education, and the right to privacy. The judiciary has further ruled that no circumstance, not even an emergency or one ostensibly related to national security, can suspend the person's right to life and personal freedom.

Right To Die

The right to self-determination, commonly referred to as the right to die, refers to a person's ability to decide how they will die. This covers the freedom to reject life-sustaining medical care as well as the choice to end one's life through euthanasia or assisted suicide.

The right to die is a hotly debated subject that brings up numerous ethical, legal, and religious difficulties. Some contend that everyone has the right to choose how and when they face death, particularly in situations where they are facing a terminal illness or excruciating suffering and some consider it a violation of people's autonomy and dignity to deny them this right.

A common man generally thinks of dying when the pain from which the person is suffering is unbearable and if he dies voluntarily then it is termed as euthanasia, it is the practice of killing anyone by his own will that if the person is suffering from a diseases which cannot be cured but in India it is only limited to those killing which are done for the ill persons and it is given to the family to decide that the life support will be removed or not.

As euthanasia is a way to end a painful life, the family members of the patients are also relief from getting physical mental and economical stress. In euthanasia the patients also have a right to refuse medical treatment but if a doctor treats a patient against his express wishes, he can be charged with assault and the individual has the freedom to exercise his right to die. The constitution guarantees the fundamental rights and freedoms where a positive right includes a negative right.

For instance, freedom of speech includes within it freedom not to speak, etc. but several are also against this to legalize the euthanasia they give the arguments as if Euthanasia will be allowed, it will diminish human dignity and violate the idea of the sanctity of life. It can serve as a "cover for murder" and makes sick and disabled persons more vulnerable than the general population.

The issue of right to die was first raised in Bombay High court in the case of Maruti Sripati Dubal (1987), in this case the Bombay high court stuck down section 309 of IPC which is for the punishment attempt to commit suicide and held it unconstitutional the high court held that right to die is included under right to life under article 21 of the Indian constitution. A similar type of judgment was given in the case of P Rathinam v. Union of India (1994) by the Supreme court.

But in the case of Gian Kaur v state of Punjab (1996), the Supreme court overruled the judgment made in P Rathinam v. Union of India, it held that active and passive euthanasia is not lawful in India under Article 21 of the Constitution and held section 309 of IPC as constitutionally valid.

But later a landmark judgment that addressed euthanasia and the right to life was Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India. In this case, Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug, worked as a nurse at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Parel, Bombay. In the evening of November 27, 1973, a hospital worker attacked her and grabbed her by the neck with a dog chain. She was also the target of the sweeper's attempted rape, but when he noticed she was menstruating, he anally raped her instead. To prevent her from moving or wreaking any damage, he tightened the chain around her neck.

A cleaner found her motionless, bloody corpse on the floor the following morning. It's been 36 years since the aforementioned incident. She had been subsisting on mashed food and was unable to move her hands or legs. It was claimed that she had no hope of improving and was entirely dependent on the KEM Hospital in Mumbai.

An appeal under Article 32 of the constitution was then filed by journalist and activist Pinki Virani, who said there was little possibility of her survival and recovery. The petition requests that the respondent stop feeding Aruna so that she can die peacefully

In its ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that euthanasia is illegal in India and that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution's right to life does not include the right to death. The court did, however, acknowledge the idea of passive euthanasia, in which a person's life-sustaining medical care may be withheld or discontinued under specific circumstances.

The court established guidelines for passive euthanasia cases, which required a court order and the endorsement of a medical board. The court also acknowledged the necessity for advance directives, which would enable people to express their wishes for end-of-life care in the event that they became incapable of communicating for any reason and become incapacitated.

On the subject of euthanasia and end-of-life care in India, the Aruna Shanbaug case has sparked intense controversy and discussion. While it did not make euthanasia legal, it did clarify the conditions that could make it acceptable and it set safeguards to protect both patient rights and the interests of medical personnel.

Conclusion
As by the development in the passive euthanasia, India is going a step ahead a advanced society, due to these judgments a large number of vulnerable people who are suffering from a incurable diseases will be free from all this but the concern about the misuse is also there that what if the method is used by the poor people to get around the cost of medication and many more also as the outcome of this debate is still uncertain.