Constitution of India, 1950:

Article 21-Interpretation of -Right to life-Scope of Held does not include right to die-Any aspect which makes life dignified is included in right to life but not that which extinguishes it-Negative aspects included in other freedoms under Article 19-Held inapplicable to Article 21.

Indian Penal Code, 1860:

Section 309-Suicide-Attempt Punishment for Provision held not violative of Articles 14 and 21.

Section 306-Abetment of suicide-Punishment for Provision held not unconstitutional-Abetment of suicide and attempt to suicide-Held two distinct offences Held Section 306 can survive independent of Section 309.

The appellant and her husband were convicted by the trial Court under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 for abetting the commission of suicide. Their conviction was upheld by the High Court. In appeal to this Court it was contended that 'right to die' being included in Article 21 of the Constitution as held in P. Rathinam v. Union of India & Anr., [1994] 3 SCC 394 declaring Section 309 IPC to be unconstitutional, any person abetting the commission of suicide by another is merely assisting in the enforcement of the fundamental right under Article 21; and, therefore, Section 306 IPC penalising assisted suicide is equally violative of Article 21. In view of the fact that the argument was based on the decision in P. C Rathinam's case the Court felt the need to reconsider that decision.

Accordingly the matter was referred to a Constitution Beach along with the connected appeals. 

On the questions (i) whether Sections 306 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are constitutionally valid and (ii) whether 'right to life' enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution includes 'right to die':