In which of the following case, the Supreme Court held that Section 309 of IPC is not unconstitutional and is not violative of Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India?

Correct option is D

The correct option is: (D) Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab

Explanation:

• In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996), a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court reversed the earlier ruling in P. Rathinam.

• The Court held that the Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 does not include the "Right to Die." The right to life only includes the "Right to Live with Dignity" up to the point of natural death.

• By finding that the Right to Life does not include the Right to Die (unnaturally ending life), the Court simultaneously upheld the constitutional validity of Section 309 IPC.

Information Booster: Section 309 IPC and Decriminalization

• Provision: Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, criminalizes the attempt to commit suicide.

• Effective Decriminalization (Post-2017): While the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 309 in Gian Kaur, the provision was later made practically redundant by the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (MHA 2017).

• MHA 2017, Section 115: This section creates a presumption that any person who attempts to commit suicide is suffering from severe stress and shall not ordinarily be tried and punished under Section 309 IPC. The government is mandated to provide care, treatment, and rehabilitation, signaling a shift from a punitive to a public health approach.

Additional Knowledge: Analysis of Other Options

• A) P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994): This was the landmark case before Gian Kaur. The two-judge Division Bench of the Supreme Court held the opposite view, ruling that the Right to Life under Article 21 does include the Right to Die, and consequently declared Section 309 IPC as unconstitutional. This judgment was immediately overruled by the Constitution Bench in Gian Kaur in 1996.

• B) Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011): This case dealt with Euthanasia, specifically the passive form (withdrawal of life support/treatment) in the case of a person in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS). The Court allowed Passive Euthanasia under strict judicial and medical supervision, distinguishing it from assisted suicide. It primarily cemented the concept of the right to die with dignity as part of Article 21, but in the context of an irreversible and unnatural state, not voluntary suicide.

• C) M.S Dubal v. State of Maharashtra (1987): This was a Bombay High Court decision that first declared Section 309 IPC unconstitutional for violating Articles 14 and 21. This High Court ruling was later endorsed by the Supreme Court in P. Rathinam and then overruled by the subsequent Supreme Court judgment in Gian Kaur.