In which case did the Supreme Court recognise a living will, or advance medical directive, as part of the right to die with dignity?
- A.Aruna Shanbaug versus Union of India, 2011
- B.Common Cause versus Union of India, 2018
- C.Gian Kaur versus State of Punjab, 1996
- D.P. Rathinam versus Union of India, 1994
Correct answer
Explanation
The correct answer is B, Common Cause versus Union of India, 2018. A Constitution Bench held that the right to die with dignity is part of the right to life under Article 21, and that an adult of sound mind may draw up an advance directive, popularly called a living will, refusing life support if he later becomes terminally ill or goes into a permanent vegetative state. Option A is wrong because Aruna Shanbaug, 2011, allowed passive euthanasia in such cases but through court supervised guidelines, without recognising a living will. Option C is wrong because Gian Kaur, 1996, upheld the punishment for attempted suicide and overruled the earlier opposite view. Option D is wrong because P. Rathinam, 1994, had held that Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code was unconstitutional, a holding reversed in Gian Kaur. The order of these four cases, 1994, 1996, 2011 and 2018, is itself a common question.
Read the full article: Article 21: Right to Life, Case Laws and Exam Facts
Practice Questions
View allWhich expression is actually used in Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
- A.Due process of law
- B.Procedure established by law
- C.Equal protection of the laws
- D.Reasonable restrictions imposed by law
Show answer
Article 21 says that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law, an expression the Constituent Assembly borrowed from the Japanese Constitution.
Read the full explanation →In which case did the Supreme Court hold that the procedure under Article 21 must be fair, just and reasonable, and not arbitrary?
- A.A. K. Gopalan versus State of Madras
- B.Maneka Gandhi versus Union of India
- C.ADM Jabalpur versus Shivkant Shukla
- D.Kharak Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh
Show answer
A seven-judge bench held that a procedure which takes away life or personal liberty must be fair, just and reasonable, gave personal liberty the widest amplitude, and tied Articles 14, 19 and 21 together as the golden triangle.
Read the full explanation →Article 21A, which makes elementary education a fundamental right, was inserted by which Constitutional Amendment?
- A.42nd Amendment, 1976
- B.44th Amendment, 1978
- C.86th Amendment, 2002
- D.93rd Amendment, 2005
Show answer
It inserted Article 21A, which directs the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years, recast Article 45 to cover early childhood care and education below six years, and added clause k to Article 51A, making it a fundamental duty…
Read the full explanation →The right to privacy was declared a fundamental right under Article 21 in which case?
- A.K. S. Puttaswamy versus Union of India
- B.Kharak Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh
- C.M. P. Sharma versus Satish Chandra
- D.Govind versus State of Madhya Pradesh
Show answer
The judgment also laid down that a law invading privacy must have legal backing, serve a legitimate State aim and be proportionate.
Read the full explanation →The doctrine that the death sentence should be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases was laid down in which case?
- A.Jagmohan Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh, 1973
- B.Bachan Singh versus State of Punjab, 1980
- C.Machhi Singh versus State of Punjab, 1983
- D.Mithu versus State of Punjab, 1983
Show answer
A Constitution Bench upheld the death penalty as consistent with Article 21 but held that it may be awarded only in the rarest of rare cases, where the alternative of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed, and that courts must weigh aggravating against mitigating circumstances.
Read the full explanation →