The Supreme Court has, for the first time, actually applied India's passive-euthanasia and living-will framework to permit withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in a pending case, rather than merely restating the right in the abstract. The order reportedly invoked the Court's power to do complete justice, bypassing some of the heavy procedural requirements that had made the right difficult to exercise since it was first recognised.
The right to die with dignity flows from Article 21 and covers only passive euthanasia — withdrawing futile treatment so an underlying fatal condition takes its course — not active euthanasia, which remains unlawful (BNS Sections 101/103). Doctors acting in good faith are shielded under BNS Section 30, while abetment of suicide (BNS Section 108) remains a distinct offence; a patient declining futile treatment is not deemed to commit suicide. The Court's use of Article 142, alongside Articles 32 and 141, allowed it to cut through rigid safeguards like medical-board and magistrate approvals.
Remember the lineage: Aruna Shanbaug recognised passive euthanasia in principle; the 2018 Common Cause Constitution Bench made the right to die with dignity intrinsic to Article 21 and permitted living wills, but with cumbersome procedure. This case marks the first practical enforcement of that right, distinct from the separate decriminalisation of attempted suicide under BNS.