Current Affairs Topics Quiz Archive
International Relations Economics Polity & Governance Environment & Ecology Science & Technology Internal Security Geography Social Issues Art & Culture Modern History

Dying with dignity- processes around living will still complicated

March 14, 2026 6 min read Polity & Governance Social Issues GS Paper 2 (Polity Judiciary Social Justice) and GS Paper 4 (Ethics Bioethics)
On This Page ▼

What Happened

  • Eight years after the Supreme Court's landmark 2018 ruling recognizing the right to die with dignity, the processes around executing an Advance Medical Directive (Living Will) remain legally complex and difficult to operationalise in practice.
  • In March 2026, the Supreme Court in the case of Harish Rana vs. Union of India issued the first judicially sanctioned passive euthanasia order in India, marking a historic step in the journey from legal recognition (2018) to actual implementation.
  • India still does not have a parliamentary statute on passive euthanasia or advance directives — the court's 2018 ruling functions as a temporary law until Parliament legislates, but eight years on, no such legislation has been enacted.
  • The complexity of the process includes: specific formalities for executing a living will (two witnesses, notarization, registration with the local government, counter-sign by a Judicial Magistrate), and multi-step medical board review processes for withdrawing life support.
  • The 2026 ruling further evolved the framework — shifting focus to "allowing a dignified exit" and mandating a robust palliative care plan to ensure the patient suffers no pain during withdrawal of treatment.

Static Topic Bridges

Common Cause vs. Union of India (2018) — The Foundational Ruling

In Common Cause vs. Union of India (2018), a five-judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). The Court legalized passive euthanasia — withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment — and established the legal framework for Advance Medical Directives (AMDs), commonly called living wills. A living will is a document in which a person, while mentally competent, specifies the medical interventions they do or do not want if they become terminally ill and incapable of expressing consent.

  • Common Cause vs. Union of India (2018): 5-judge Constitutional Bench; legalized passive euthanasia; recognized right to die with dignity under Article 21.
  • Passive euthanasia: withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment (e.g., ventilator, artificial nutrition) to allow a natural death — legal in India.
  • Active euthanasia: administering a lethal drug or intervention to cause death — remains illegal in India under Section 302 (murder) and Section 304 (culpable homicide) of IPC.
  • Advance Medical Directive (AMD/Living Will): legally recognized document under the 2018 ruling; person specifies treatment preferences in anticipation of losing decision-making capacity.

Connection to this news: The 2018 ruling created the legal right; the 2026 Harish Rana judgment represents the first actual judicial implementation of passive euthanasia, revealing how an eight-year gap between legal recognition and real-world execution reflects systemic institutional inertia and the absence of enabling legislation.

The Process for Executing a Living Will — Why It Is Complicated

The Supreme Court's 2018 ruling laid down a detailed, multi-step process for executing and acting upon a living will: (1) The person must be of sound mind; (2) the document must be signed in front of two witnesses and countersigned by a Judicial Magistrate; (3) the living will must be registered with the local body and kept on record at a government hospital; (4) when the person becomes terminally ill, a Primary Medical Board (of at least 3 doctors from the treating hospital) must first certify the condition; (5) then a Secondary Medical Board (district-level, 3 doctors from a different institution, convened by the District Collector) must independently confirm; (6) only then can life support be withdrawn, with family consent. This eight-step process — designed as a safeguard — has in practice made living wills nearly impossible to execute.

  • Judicial Magistrate countersignature: a bureaucratic requirement that causes delays — most Magistrates are unfamiliar with AMD procedures.
  • Dual Medical Board requirement: Primary (hospital) + Secondary (district-level, convened by Collector) — creates delays of weeks or months in terminal cases.
  • Kerala as implementation front-runner: Kerala health department and hospitals have been most active in operationalizing the AMD framework in India.
  • Parliament's inaction: no Advance Medical Directive Act or Passive Euthanasia legislation passed as of 2026 — the 2018 court ruling remains the operative "law."

Connection to this news: The cumbersome nature of the process means that for most patients, the constitutionally recognised right to die with dignity is theoretical, not practical — raising questions of equitable access to rights (only those with legal literacy and family support can realistically use the AMD framework).

Article 21 and Evolving Interpretation of Right to Life

Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The Supreme Court has progressively expanded Article 21 through judicial interpretation: from bare survival to encompass the right to live with dignity, the right to health, the right to privacy (Puttaswamy judgment, 2017), and now the right to die with dignity. This expansive interpretation places India among a small set of countries that constitutionally protect the right to a dignified death.

  • Article 21: fundamental right to life and personal liberty — interpreted to include the right to live with dignity.
  • Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978): expanded Article 21 from "procedure established by law" to require the procedure itself to be just, fair, and reasonable.
  • K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017): 9-judge bench recognised Right to Privacy as fundamental under Article 21 — bodily autonomy underpins the right to refuse medical treatment.
  • Aruna Shanbaug vs. Union of India (2011): SC permitted passive euthanasia in exceptional cases under court supervision — a precursor to the 2018 ruling.

Connection to this news: The continuing complexity of the living will process reflects a gap between constitutional aspiration (Article 21 as a broad right to dignified living and dying) and legislative/administrative reality — a recurring tension in India's rights jurisprudence where courts recognise rights but Parliament and the executive are slow to create enabling frameworks.

Key Facts & Data

  • Common Cause vs. Union of India (2018): 5-judge Constitutional Bench; legalized passive euthanasia; recognised Advance Medical Directive (Living Will).
  • Harish Rana vs. Union of India (March 2026): first judicially sanctioned passive euthanasia order in India.
  • India has no parliamentary statute on passive euthanasia or advance directives as of 2026 — court ruling functions as operative law.
  • AMD execution requirements: 2 witnesses + Judicial Magistrate countersignature + registration + dual Medical Board review.
  • Passive euthanasia: legal (withdrawal of life support); Active euthanasia: illegal (constitutes murder under IPC).
  • Article 21: right to life and personal liberty — expanded to include right to die with dignity.
  • Preceding landmark: Aruna Shanbaug vs. Union of India (2011) — SC permitted passive euthanasia in exceptional cases.
  • Kerala: most active state in operationalizing AMD/living will framework within existing court guidelines.
  • Palliative care plan: mandated by 2026 Harish Rana ruling to ensure pain-free withdrawal of treatment.