Judicial legislation refers to the Supreme Court formulating binding guidelines to fill legislative vacuums, ensuring the protection of Fundamental Rights. This proactive role, anchored in the Basic Structure, serves as a vital tool for Constitutional Morality when Parliament remains silent.

Judicial Expansion of Article 21: Right to Die with Dignity

Concept and Constitutional Basis of Judicial Legislation

1. Legislative Gap Filling: courts issue directions to address legal voids.

   • Eg: Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) established sexual harassment guidelines.

2. Article 141 Authority: law declared by the Supreme Court binds all courts.

   • Eg: Article 141 ensures uniform application of norms.

3. Article 142 Power: the court exercises power to pass decrees.

   • Eg: Article 142 simplified passive euthanasia procedures in 2023.

4. Article 21 Expansion: the judiciary interprets life to include dignity.

   • Eg: Maneka Gandhi v. State of Union (1978) broadened personal liberty.

5. Separation of Powers: judicial legislation acts as a check.

   • Eg: Kesavananda Bharati (1973) limits reach to constitutional boundaries.

Evolution of Passive Euthanasia Jurisprudence

1. P. Rathinam Precedent: the court held life included the right to die.

   • Eg: P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994) struck down Section 309 of the IPC.

2. Gian Kaur Reversal: the bench clarified life does not encompass perishing.

   • Eg: Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996) overruled the Rathinam verdict.

3. Aruna Shanbaug Milestone: the court permitted passive euthanasia under monitoring.

   • Eg: Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011) distinguished active and passive euthanasia.

4. Common Cause Recognition: the judiciary recognized the right to die with dignity.

   • Eg: Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) legalized medical directives.

5. Harish Rana Clarification: rulings confirm treatments can be withheld.

   • Eg: Harish Rana Case (March 2026) applied best interests standard.

Living Will Framework and Way Forward

1. Advance Medical Directive: individuals document refusal of life support.

   • Eg: Common Cause (2018) guidelines mandate informed consent.

2. Simplified Execution Process: modifications allowed wills attested by notaries.

   • Eg: Supreme Court (2023) removed the Judicial Magistrate requirement.

3. Medical Board Scrutiny: a board must certify the condition.

   • Eg: Ministry of Health Draft Guidelines (2024) detail withdrawal procedures.

4. Implementation Obstacles: delays hinder the use of wills.

   • Eg: Bombay High Court (June 2024) criticized slow implementation.

5. Need for Statute: the judiciary urges Parliament to enact legislation.

   • Eg: Law Commission of India (Report 241) recommended a framework.

The transition from judicial guidelines to statutory law is essential to ensure legal certainty and institutional efficiency. Enacting a dedicated End-of-Life Care Bill would harmonize medical ethics with the Constitutional mandate of human dignity.