The case of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab involved the constitutional validity of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalizes ‘attempt to suicide’. The petitioner, Gian Kaur, challenged the provision, arguing that it violated the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This case is significant because it directly addresses and overturns the precedent set by the earlier judgment in P. Rathinam v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court had declared Section 309 unconstitutional.
IssuesThe Supreme Court, in its examination, noted the fundamental distinction between the right to life and the right to die. The Court observed that the right to life under Article 21 does not encompass the right to end one's life voluntarily. The judgment emphasized that the value of life should be preserved, and that the law’s intent behind Section 309 was to prevent suicides and provide help to those in distress rather than to punish them.
The Court critically analyzed the arguments presented and noted that the legislative intent behind Section 309 was to protect life and maintain public morality. The judgment clarified that the right to life is a basic human right which does not extend to the right to die, thus reaffirming the importance of Section 309 in upholding societal values and norms.
DecisionThe Supreme Court ruled that Section 309 of the IPC is constitutional and upheld its validity. This decision overruled the previous judgment in P. Rathinam v. Union of India, which had deemed that the right to life under Article 21 includes right to die and had declared Section 309 of the IPC unconstitutional. The Court concluded that the right to life under Article 21 does not include the right to commit suicide. The ruling reinforced that the criminalization of attempted suicide under Section 309 serves a legitimate state interest in preserving life and providing necessary support to those in distress.