The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India does not include the right to die. Both ‘euthanasia’ and ‘assisted suicide’ are not lawful in India.

1. An application for grant of euthanasia was given by the petitioner of Criminal Writ Petition No.1047 of 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘victim’) to Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, a copy of which was given to Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court. Such an application dated 17.06.2013 was registered as Criminal Writ Petition no.1047/2013. Counter affidavits were filed by the Director General of Police, Uttarakhand, as also by respondent no.6 (Pramendra Dobal) and the Investigating Officer.

2. The Assistant Superintendent of Police allegedly committed rape with the victim. An FIR (being case crime no.259/2013) was lodged against the accused under Sections 328, 376 & 506 IPC. The investigation was entrusted to CBCID. It was also stated in the petition that the accused used his mobile phone to send indecent and obscene SMS to her. He also sent SMS to the victim tendering apology for his guilt and for pardoning him taking a plea that he has wife and a child. Since the victim has not been able to get justice and the Government as well as the Police Department was saving the accused, therefore, she prayed for granting euthanasia by way of filing application to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, a copy of which was given to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court.

3. By order dated 14.05.2013 passed by the Director General of Police, the investigation of the case was transferred to CBCID, who, after conducting investigation of the case, submitted a final report on 31.12.2013. Since then the final report is pending disposal before the Magistrate concerned. The departmental enquiry was conducted by the Superintendent of Police, who submitted his report on 29.01.2013 to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kumaon Region, Nainital. Although, the accused was censured for his misconduct, but the offence of sexual assault was not found proved against him. The Investigating Officer of CBCID filed a final report against the accused, primarily on the ground that the victim’s location on the date and time of the alleged incident was at her own house at Rampur Road, Haldwani.

4. The alleged incident of sexual assault on 15.10.2012 and the subsequent conversation of the accused with the victim tormented her psyche. The incident of rape was so shocking to her that she chose to end her life with the permission of the Court. She, therefore, moved an application for grant of euthanasia. The shocking incident of sexual assault was, no doubt, unpardonable, but the question which arises for consideration of this Court is – whether she should be granted permission for intentionally ending her life in order to relieve her from pain, mental trauma and suffering?

5. The word ‘euthanasia’ was first used in the medical context by Francis Bacon in the 17th century, to refer to an easy, painless, happy death, during which it was a “physician’s responsibility to alleviate the ‘physical sufferings’ of the body”. An important idea behind the distinction between ‘active euthanasia’ and ‘passive euthanasia’ is that, in the latter, the doctors are not actively killing anyone, they are simply not saving the patient.

6. Rober Ingersoll argued for euthanasia, stating in 1894 that where someone is suffering from a terminal illness, such as terminal cancer, they should have a right to end their pain through suicide. Felix Adler offered a similar approach, although, unlike Ingersoll, Adler did not reject religion, and argued from an Ethical Culture framework. In 1891, Alder argued that those suffering from overwhelming pain should have the right to commit suicide, and, furthermore, that it should be permissible for a doctor to assist – thus making Adler the first ‘prominent American’ to argue for suicide in cases where people were suffering from chronic illness. Both Ingersoll and Adler argued for voluntary euthanasia of adults suffering from terminal ailments.

7. On 07.03.2011, the Hon’ble Supreme Court legali