Euthanasia in India: A Legal, Socio-Cultural, and Psychological Analysis of the Right to Die with Dignity

Abstract

Euthanasia remains one of the most complex issues in contemporary legal and ethical discourse, particularly in a diverse society such as India, where law, religion, culture, and family values are deeply intertwined. This research examines euthanasia in India through a multidimensional framework by analysing its legal evolution, socio-cultural dimensions, and psychological impact. This paper explores the legal framework in India through landmark judicial decisions such as Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India, Common Cause v. Union of India, and the recent case of Harish Rana v. Union of India. It further examines the statutory position under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which continues to criminalise active euthanasia, even as passive euthanasia derives constitutional legitimacy through Article 21. The study further examines socio-cultural practices across various religious traditions, including Jainism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, and Buddhism, and also highlights the possibility of misuse through certain socio-cultural practices such as Thalaikoothal. In addition, it examines the psychological impact on patients, family members, and medical professionals, with particular attention to moral distress, guilt, and emotional conflict, supported by relevant theoretical perspectives. The paper demonstrates that India’s euthanasia framework must balance individual autonomy with protection against coercion and misuse, while also ensuring legal clarity, ethical accountability, and psychological support for all stakeholders.

Introduction

The right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to die with dignity, particularly through passive euthanasia. While the law does not explicitly recognize euthanasia, judicial decisions—most notably Common Cause v. Union of India (2018)—have allowed terminally ill or incapacitated patients to refuse life-prolonging treatment via advance directives or “living wills.” Earlier cases like Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab and Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India laid the groundwork for this recognition, balancing sanctity of life with patient autonomy. Recent rulings, such as Harish Rana v. Union of India (2026), demonstrate practical implementation of passive euthanasia under strict medical and legal supervision.

Euthanasia is categorized as active, passive, voluntary, and non-voluntary, each with different legal and ethical implications. Beyond law, its practice raises significant psychological, socio-cultural, and religious considerations, particularly in India, where traditions, family responsibilities, and spiritual beliefs influence attitudes toward life and death. Practices like Jain Sallekhana and Hindu notions of death illustrate the tension between religious freedom and the constitutional right to life, highlighting the complexity of ethically and legally regulating end-of-life decisions in a diverse society.

The Indian legal framework remains cautious: active euthanasia is prohibited, while passive euthanasia is permitted under judicial guidelines, emphasizing dignity, autonomy, and protection from suffering, though comprehensive legislation is still needed.

Conclusion

Euthanasia remains one of the most sensitive and debatable issues in Indian legal discourse, as it lies at the intersection of law, morality, religion, culture, human dignity, psychological impact. It is not merely a debate about death, but it is also about a dignified life and the role of the State in regulating decisions. It is about a dignified death. In the Indian context, where cultural beliefs and social obligations are given significant importance, euthanasia cannot be examined solely through a legal lens. It requires a broader understanding of suffering, dignity, and consent. India’s jurisprudence has evolved from rejection in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab to recognition of passive euthanasia in Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India and finally to living wills and their implementation in Common Cause v. Union of India and Harish Rana v. Union of India. These developments have shaped the constitutional and practical framework governing end-of-life decisions. While active euthanasia continues to remain prohibited, the recognition of passive euthanasia and living wills reflects an important shift in Indian jurisprudence. However, this legal development alone is not sufficient to fully understand the issue. The socio- cultural and psychological dimensions largely neglected in existing research are equally critical to formulating a protective framework. The socio- cultural and religious analysis further demonstrates that Indian society holds diverse and often conflicting views while most of the religious traditions emphasize sanctity of life yet Jainism, Hinduism and certain interpretations with other faiths recognize the idea of a conscious and voluntary acceptance of death under exceptional circumstances. At the same time, exploitative practices such as Thalaikoothal reveal the dangers of social coercion, economic vulnerability. Hence, any legal recognition of euthanasia must be accompanied by strict procedural safeguards, judicial scrutiny, and protection against coercion and abuse. From a psychological perspective, euthanasia raises profound concerns that extend beyond the patient to include family members, and medical professionals. Terminal illness often brings feelings of fear, hopelessness, and helplessness. Families experience guilt, grief, moral conflict, and social stigma as well. These realities clearly demonstrate that euthanasia is not merely a legal issue, but also one that extends to mental health, emotional burden, psychological counselling, and ethical support systems. The psychological perspective remains significantly under-addressed by the current legal framework. India’s euthanasia framework in the future must focus on- 1) Protecting vulnerable individuals from socio- economic coercion and practices like Thalaikoothal through strict procedural oversight. 2) Respecting genuine religious and spiritual practices and distinguishing them from passive euthanasia. 3) Institutionalising psychological support for patients, families and healthcare professionals navigating end-of-life decisions. 4) Developing clear statutory guidelines rather than relying on judicial precedent alone, ensuring consistency, predictability and protection against misuse. In conclusion, India’s approach must seek to balance compassion with caution, dignity with protection, and autonomy with accountability. The promise of Article 21 cannot be fully realised unless the individuals facing irreversible suffering are treated not merely as subjects of law but also as human beings entitled to dignity and care. Hence, the need of the hour is a clear, comprehensive, and humane statutory framework that recognizes the right to die with dignity while ensuring procedural fairness, medical ethics, psychological support. Only then can India uphold both the sanctity of life and the dignity of death.

References

Cases [1] Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v Union of India 4 SCC 454. [2] Common Cause (A Regd Society) v Union of India 5 SCC 1. [3] Gian Kaur v State of Punjab 2 SCC 648. [4] Harish Rana v Union of India 2026 INSC 222 (11 March 2026). Additional cases [5] Nikhil Soni v Union of India MANU/RH/1345/2015 (Rajasthan High Court, 10 August 2015). Statutes [6] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, ss 101, 108, 226. [7] Constitution of India, art 21. Books, articles and online sources [8] Emina KA, ‘Legal, social and ethical issues in euthanasia’ (March 2021) ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351457073_LEGAL_SOCIAL_AND_ETHICAL_ISSUES_IN_EUTHANASIA. [9] Mishra A, ‘Euthanasia and the slippery slope: Socio-legal perspectives on compassion and control’ (13 January 2025) IJLLR Journal https://www.ijllr.com/post/euthanasia-and-the-slippery-slope-socio-legal-perspectives-on-compassion-and-control. [10] Pawar S, Euthanasia: Indian socio-legal perspectives (IISTE 2013). [11] Shreya, ‘Euthanasia: Ethical considerations and legal perspectives’ (n.d.) Legal Service India https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-12500-euthanasia-ethical-considerations-and-legal-perspectives.html. [12] Srivastava A and Laxmi V, ‘An analysis of euthanasia & right to die laws in India’ (n.d.) IJIRL https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AN-ANALYSIS-OF-EUTHANASIA-RIGHT-TO-DIE-LAWS-IN-INDIA.pdf. [13] Sujata P and Choudhary S, ‘Dying with dignity: A legal and ethical analysis of euthanasia in an Indian perspective’ (3 March 2025) IJETIR http://www.iciset.in/Paper2085.pdf. [14] Vaishnav A and Pitaliya A, ‘The prevalent belief on euthanasia in India: A legal, ethical, religious and socio-cultural perspective’ (7 July 2025) IJCRT https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2107759.pdf. [15] Verma RK and Singh B, ‘Euthanasia in India: A critical examination of its legal and ethical dimensions’ (n.d.) Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research https://ijlr.iledu.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/V5I192.pdf.

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Priyanka Navandar, Nareshkumar Choudhary. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.