Score:
9.5/15
Analyze what earned this score 🔥
Topper’s Copy
GS2
Indian Polity
15 marks
“Passive euthanasia in India reflects the evolving interpretation of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
Discuss in the light of recent Supreme Court developments and the ethical concerns surrounding end-of-life decisions.
Student’s Answer
Evaluation by SuperKalam
Demand of the Question
- Evolution of Article 21 interpretation - from basic right to life to dignified death
- Recent Supreme Court developments - landmark cases and legal framework evolution
- Ethical concerns - moral, medical, and societal dilemmas in end-of-life decisions
- Discussion format - balanced analysis connecting constitutional interpretation with judicial developments and ethics
What you wrote:
Right to Life under Art 21 has transformed from a mere "right to exist" to a "right to live with dignity". This dignity as interpreted by the Supreme court of India extends to end of life, encompassing the right to a dignified death through passive euthanasia (the withdrawal of life support or medical treatment allowing a terminally ill patient to die in natural course).
Right to Life under Art 21 has transformed from a mere "right to exist" to a "right to live with dignity". This dignity as interpreted by the Supreme court of India extends to end of life, encompassing the right to a dignified death through passive euthanasia (the withdrawal of life support or medical treatment allowing a terminally ill patient to die in natural course).
Suggestions to improve:
- Could introduce the constitutional-ethical tension (e.g., "This evolution has sparked debates between individual autonomy and societal values, requiring judicial intervention to balance competing interests")
What you wrote:
Recent Supreme Court developments:
The legal journey of euthanasia in India has moved from total prohibition to regulated permission.
1) Aruna Shanbaug case (2011): The SC first recognised passive euthanasia allowing it under strict judicial marshalling for patients in permanent vegetative state (pvs).
2) Common cause vs UOI (2018): A landmark 5-judge bench declared that the Right to Lie with dignity is a fundamental right. It legalized living wills (Advance medical Directives) which allow individuals to decide in advance that they should not be kept on life support if they become terminally ill.
3) 2023 amendments - Recognising that the 2018 guidelines were too cumbersome the SC simplified the process for living wills removing the requirement for a judicial magistrate's countersignature and making the medical boards decision making more time bound.
Recent Supreme Court developments:
The legal journey of euthanasia in India has moved from total prohibition to regulated permission.
1) Aruna Shanbaug case (2011): The SC first recognised passive euthanasia allowing it under strict judicial marshalling for patients in permanent vegetative state (pvs).
2) Common cause vs UOI (2018): A landmark 5-judge bench declared that the Right to Lie with dignity is a fundamental right. It legalized living wills (Advance medical Directives) which allow individuals to decide in advance that they should not be kept on life support if they become terminally ill.
3) 2023 amendments - Recognising that the 2018 guidelines were too cumbersome the SC simplified the process for living wills removing the requirement for a judicial magistrate's countersignature and making the medical boards decision making more time bound.
Suggestions to improve:
- Could explicitly link each case to Article 21 evolution (e.g., "Aruna Shanbaug expanded Article 21 beyond mere survival to include quality of life considerations, recognizing that prolonged vegetative existence may violate human dignity")
- Could mention the Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patients (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) Act, 2016 which provided legislative backing to judicial pronouncements
- Could reference specific constitutional principles like personal liberty under Article 21 being interpreted to include self-determination in medical decisions
What you wrote:
Ethical concerns surrounding End-of-Life Decisions:
1) Sanctity of Life → Critics argued that life is sacred and act that hastens death.
2) Autonomy vs Paternalism → conflict between Individual and doctor's duty to save life.
3) The Slippery Slope → Fear that legalising passive euthanasia might lead to misuse of the law to get rid of elderly or disabled.
4) Medical Ethics → The Hippocratic oath binds doctors to do no harm creating a moral dilemma when asked to withdraw life sustaining treatment.
Ethical concerns surrounding End-of-Life Decisions:
1) Sanctity of Life → Critics argued that life is sacred and act that hastens death.
2) Autonomy vs Paternalism → conflict between Individual and doctor's duty to save life.
3) The Slippery Slope → Fear that legalising passive euthanasia might lead to misuse of the law to get rid of elderly or disabled.
4) Medical Ethics → The Hippocratic oath binds doctors to do no harm creating a moral dilemma when asked to withdraw life sustaining treatment.
Suggestions to improve:
- Could elaborate on autonomy vs paternalism with examples (e.g., "Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood transfusion cases highlight the tension between individual religious beliefs and medical recommendations")
- Could discuss informed consent challenges (e.g., patients with dementia or mental incapacity cannot make autonomous decisions, raising questions about surrogate decision-making)
- Could mention resource allocation ethics in healthcare systems where life support decisions may be influenced by economic considerations
What you wrote:
The recognition of passive euthanasia reflects a mature democracy that respects individual agency. While the judiciary has provided a robust framework the focus must now shift toward palliative care infrastructure. True dignity in death is achieved not just by the right to refuse treatment but by ensuring that every citizen has access to pain relief, and compassionate care in their final days.
The recognition of passive euthanasia reflects a mature democracy that respects individual agency. While the judiciary has provided a robust framework the focus must now shift toward palliative care infrastructure. True dignity in death is achieved not just by the right to refuse treatment but by ensuring that every citizen has access to pain relief, and compassionate care in their final days.
Suggestions to improve:
- Could conclude with constitutional values reinforcement (e.g., "This judicial evolution exemplifies how Article 21's dynamic interpretation ensures constitutional relevance in changing times while upholding human dignity as envisioned in the Preamble")
Your answer demonstrates solid understanding of the legal evolution and ethical complexities. The chronological case law progression is well-structured, and you've covered major ethical concerns comprehensively. However, strengthening the explicit connection between judicial developments and Article 21's constitutional evolution would enhance the answer's analytical depth.
Demand of the Question
- Evolution of Article 21 interpretation - from basic right to life to dignified death
- Recent Supreme Court developments - landmark cases and legal framework evolution
- Ethical concerns - moral, medical, and societal dilemmas in end-of-life decisions
- Discussion format - balanced analysis connecting constitutional interpretation with judicial developments and ethics
What you wrote:
Right to Life under Art 21 has transformed from a mere "right to exist" to a "right to live with dignity". This dignity as interpreted by the Supreme court of India extends to end of life, encompassing the right to a dignified death through passive euthanasia (the withdrawal of life support or medical treatment allowing a terminally ill patient to die in natural course).
Right to Life under Art 21 has transformed from a mere "right to exist" to a "right to live with dignity". This dignity as interpreted by the Supreme court of India extends to end of life, encompassing the right to a dignified death through passive euthanasia (the withdrawal of life support or medical treatment allowing a terminally ill patient to die in natural course).
Suggestions to improve:
- Could introduce the constitutional-ethical tension (e.g., "This evolution has sparked debates between individual autonomy and societal values, requiring judicial intervention to balance competing interests")
More Challenges
View All- View Challenge
GS2
SOCIAL_ISSUES_AND_SCHEMES
15 Jun, 2026
"Despite constitutional guarantees and statutory protections, disability welfare in India continues to suffer from fragmented implementation and inadequate social security coverage."
In this context, examine the need for a Uniform Nationwide Disability Pension System in India. Discuss the constitutional basis, socio-economic rationale, key challenges, and suggest measures for effective implementation. - View Challenge
GS1
Art & Culture
Yesterday
What is a Geographical Indication (GI) tag? Explain how GI-tagged products such as Tezpur Litchi contribute to rural development, branding, and export promotion in India.
- View Challenge
GS2
Indian Polity
13 Jun, 2026
Discuss the constitutional and statutory provisions governing the disqualification of Members of Parliament in India. How do these provisions help maintain the integrity of the electoral process?
SuperKalam is your personal mentor for UPSC preparation, guiding you at every step of the exam journey.
Download the App
STUDY RESOURCES
CONTACT US
ⓒ Snapstack Technologies Private Limited