3rd

SEMESTER
RAHUL ABHISHEK

ROLL NO. 954

[RIGHT TO LIFE VIS--VIS
RIGHT TO DIE]
SUBJECT CRIMINAL LAW-I
RIGHT TO LIFE VIS--VIS RIGHT TO DIE
ROUH DRAFT
INTRODUCTION:-
The taking of human life has been strongly condemned by most world religions and philosophies
over the centuries. International human rights law has in turn sought to uphold this most
sacrosanct of rights in a number of treaties. The life of an individual is clearly protected from
being arbitrarily taken by the state.
The right to life is not, however, as inviolable as it might seem at first sight. There are a number
of situations where states may deprive individuals of life itself and to which international human
rights law does not raise an objection. The use of the death penalty is one such example. Human
rights law does not prohibit the use of the death penalty as a punishment for crimes but does
encourage its abolition and seek to limit its use. The use of violence in self-defence lies at the
base of other justifications for the taking of human life. Killing is permitted at times of war save
for the murder of civilians and prisoners of war. Human rights law thus tries to respond to the
myriad of ethical dilemmas raised by the right to life by establishing a range of prohibitions and
exhortations.
The right to die is the ethical or institutional entitlement of the individual to commit suicide or
we can say to undergo voluntary euthanasia. Possession of this right is often understood to mean
that a person with a terminal illness should be allowed to commit suicide or assisted suicide or to
decline their life-prolonging treatment because the disease would ultimately turn their
suffering into death. This is always a big debatable issue. The right to die is sometimes
associated with the idea that one's body and one's life are one's own and one can dispose it as
they find it fit. However, a legitimate state interest in preventing irrational suicides are
sometimes argued. Pilpel and Amsel write, "Contemporary proponents of rational suicide or
the right to die usually demand by rationality that the decision to kill oneself be both the
autonomous choice of the agent (i.e., not due to the physician or the family pressuring them to
do the right thing and suicide) and a best option under the circumstances choice desired by
the stoics or utilitarians, as well as other natural conditions such as the choice being stable, not
an impulsive decision, not due to mental illness, achieved after due deliberation, etc."
[1]


AIMS AND OBJECTIVE
The aim of researcher, in doing the research work is to give a brief outline of RIGHT TO LIFE
VIS--VIS RIGHT TO DIE
HYPOTHESIS
The study seeks to test the that how right to life is dominating on right to die and vice versa.




RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:-
As whole research work for this work is confined to the library books, law review, cases etc. and
no field work has been done hence researcher in his research work has opted the doctrinal
methodology of research.
SOURCES OF DATA:-
For doing the research work various sources has been used. Researcher in the research work has
relied upon the sources like many books of the Indian Constitution, Indian Penal Code 1860 and
cases. The online materials have been remained as a trustworthy and helpful source for the
research.
CHAPTERISATION
(i) CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION
(ii) CHAPTER 2 RIGHT TO DIE VIS-A-VIS RIGHT NOT TO
DIE:CONSTITUTIONAL DILEMMA
SCOPE OF ART.21
MEANING OF RIGHT TO LIFE UNDER ART21

(iii) CHAPTER 3-ETHANASIA:Right To Life Vs Right To Die

(iv) CHAPTER 4- CASE STUDY

(v) CHAPTER 5-CONLUSION

BIBLOGRAPHY
INTERNET SOURCE
http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/wpc552013.pdf
http://cis-
india.org/accessibility/publications/uploads/Case%20for%20Amendment%20of%20Copyrig
ht%20Regime%20in%20India%20November%2022-%202009.pdf/at_download/file
file:///C:/Users/acer/Downloads/Editorial2.pdf
BOOK SOURCE
INDIAN CONSTITUTION

BY,
RAHUL ABHISHEK
ROLL NO. 954
3
rd
SEMESTER