Common Cause v. Union of India
“The Right to Die with Dignity: Living Will Made Accessible”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court simplified the procedure for executing a Living Will (Advance Medical Directive) for passive euthanasia. The 2023 order removed the requirement of Magistrate attestation, reduced the experience criteria for doctors, and made the process more accessible. Now, a Living Will can be signed before two witnesses and attested by a Notary or Gazetted Officer.
The Bottom Line
You can now create a Living Will to refuse life-prolonging treatment if terminally ill. The process has been simplified—no Magistrate required, just two witnesses and a Notary/Gazetted Officer attestation.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
PIL Filed
Common Cause files PIL seeking recognition of right to die with dignity
PIL Filed
Common Cause files PIL seeking recognition of right to die with dignity
Constitution Bench Judgment
Five-Judge Bench recognizes passive euthanasia and right to die with dignity as fundamental right
Constitution Bench Judgment
Five-Judge Bench recognizes passive euthanasia and right to die with dignity as fundamental right
ISCCM Application
Indian Society for Critical Care Medicine files application to modify cumbersome guidelines
ISCCM Application
Indian Society for Critical Care Medicine files application to modify cumbersome guidelines
Modified Guidelines
Supreme Court simplifies Living Will procedure, removes Magistrate requirement
Modified Guidelines
Supreme Court simplifies Living Will procedure, removes Magistrate requirement
The Story
In 2005, an NGO called Common Cause approached the Supreme Court praying for a declaration that the 'fundamental right to live with dignity' under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the 'right to die with dignity' and seeking directions for adopting suitable procedures for executing 'Living Wills' (Advance Medical Directives).
In the landmark 2018 judgment, a five-Judge Constitution Bench recognized passive euthanasia and the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right under Article 21. The Court laid down elaborate guidelines for executing Living Wills, which included attestation by a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), approval from multiple medical and legal authorities, and doctors with 20 years of experience on medical boards.
However, in July 2019, the Indian Society for Critical Care Medicine (ISCCM) filed a miscellaneous application describing the 2018 guidelines as "cumbersome" and practically inaccessible for most people. They highlighted that the stringent procedural requirements were defeating the very purpose of the right that was recognized.
The applicant sought modification of the guidelines to make them more practical and accessible, arguing that the requirement of judicial attestation and highly experienced doctors was creating unnecessary barriers for terminally ill patients and their families.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
2018 guidelines are impractical
The requirement of Magistrate attestation and 20-year experienced doctors makes it nearly impossible for ordinary citizens to execute a Living Will.
Defeating the purpose of the right
The stringent procedural requirements are defeating the very purpose of recognizing the right to die with dignity.
Need for accessible healthcare decisions
End-of-life decisions are time-sensitive and require simpler, accessible procedures that can be implemented in medical emergencies.
Respondent
State of Haryana
Safeguards are necessary
The strict guidelines were put in place to prevent misuse and protect vulnerable patients from decisions made against their interests.
Judicial oversight prevents abuse
Magistrate involvement ensures that the Living Will is genuine and not made under coercion or undue influence.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Supreme Court recognized that while the 2018 judgment was path-breaking in recognizing the right to die with dignity, the procedural guidelines had become barriers to accessing this right. The Court adopted a pragmatic approach, balancing the need for safeguards against misuse with the need for accessibility.
The right to die with dignity is a fundamental right under Article 21. However, this right cannot be illusory due to impractical procedural requirements.
Emphasizes that fundamental rights must be practically accessible.
A Living Will can now be signed in the presence of two independent witnesses and attested by a Notary or Gazetted Officer. Magistrate involvement is no longer required.
Key procedural modification making Living Wills accessible.
The experience criteria of doctors on Medical Boards is reduced from 20 years to 5 years.
Makes it easier to constitute Medical Boards to assess cases.
Both Medical Boards should give their opinion preferably within 48 hours.
Ensures timely decisions in end-of-life situations.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
The modified guidelines make the procedure for executing a Living Will accessible to ordinary citizens, enabling them to exercise their fundamental right to die with dignity.
Directions Issued
- Living Will can be signed in presence of two independent witnesses
- Attestation by Notary or Gazetted Officer (Magistrate no longer required)
- Experience criteria for doctors reduced from 20 years to 5 years
- Medical Board size reduced to three members each
- Preferable time limit of 48 hours for Medical Boards to give opinion
- Chief District Medical Officer requirement removed; can nominate someone
Key Legal Principles Established
The right to die with dignity is a fundamental right under Article 21.
An individual's right to execute advance medical directives is an assertion of the right to bodily integrity and self-determination.
Passive euthanasia (withdrawal of life-supporting treatment) is legally permissible under proper safeguards.
Active euthanasia (administering lethal substances) remains illegal in India.
Procedural requirements for exercising fundamental rights must be practical and accessible.
A Living Will allows a person to give advance instructions for withdrawal of life-support when they are in a terminal condition and unable to communicate.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- You have a fundamental right to die with dignity under Article 21.
- You can create a Living Will (Advance Medical Directive) specifying your wishes about life-prolonging treatment.
- The Living Will requires two witnesses and attestation by a Notary or Gazetted Officer—no Magistrate needed.
- Your Living Will will be implemented when you are terminally ill and unable to communicate your wishes.
- Passive euthanasia means withdrawal of life support, not active administration of lethal substances.
- Your family and doctors must respect your Living Will when you cannot communicate.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Constitutional Provisions
Article 21
Constitution of India
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Relevance: The Court held that the right to die with dignity is part of the right to life under Article 21.
Statutory Provisions
Section 309
Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both.”
Relevance: Distinguished from passive euthanasia which is not suicide but withdrawal of medical treatment.
Section 115
Mental Healthcare Act, 2017
“Decriminalized attempt to suicide by stating that a person who attempts suicide shall be presumed to be under severe stress and shall not be tried and punished under Section 309 IPC.”
Relevance: Shows legislative intent to treat end-of-life decisions with compassion rather than criminality.
Related Cases & Precedents
Common Cause v. Union of India (2018)
cited(2018) 5 SCC 1
Original Constitution Bench judgment recognizing passive euthanasia and the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right under Article 21.
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India
cited(2011) 4 SCC 454
First case to legally recognize passive euthanasia in India, involving a nurse who was in a vegetative state for 42 years.
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab
cited(1996) 2 SCC 648
Constitution Bench held that right to life under Article 21 does not include right to die, but recognized that dying with dignity is part of right to life.
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
cited(2017) 10 SCC 1
Nine-Judge Bench recognized right to privacy as a fundamental right, including bodily autonomy and personal choices.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Kannada
Common Cause v. Union of India Case Explained in Kannada
English
Common Cause v. Union of India Case Explained in English
Tamil
Common Cause v. Union of India Case Explained in Tamil
Telugu
Common Cause v. Union of India Case Explained in Telugu
Hindi
Common Cause v. Union of India Case Explained in Hindi
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
2025 INSC 162
The Case That Made Silence During Arrest Unconstitutional
Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
2024 INSC 625
When Criticism of a Public Figure Doesn't Become a Caste Atrocity
Omkar Gond v. Union of India
2024 INSC 775
Disability Percentage Cannot Automatically Deny Your Dream of Becoming a Doctor
Just Rights for Children v. S. Harish
2024 INSC 714
Watching Child Pornography is NOT Just "Moral Decay" — It's a Serious Crime
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.