INTERVIEW FOR CSE 2019 All ForumIAS members selected for CSE 2019 Personality Test must submit their details and DAF and register below to receive further instructions and guidance from ForumIAS. Click here to register now
INTERVIEW 2020 CHANNEL ForumIAS Channel for Interview Preparation is now Active! Please join the channel by clicking here
it means that there would have positive obligation on state to punish if it were unconstitutional to do so???????????? kya matlab hua??????? isliye bas ek example se clear kar do apni baat .............@arindamsarkar
NO NO!
It means that there would have positive obligation on state to punish suicides if suicides were deemed unconstitutional.
Now, "if suicides were deemed unconstitutional" means - if there was a fixed constitutional prohibition against the practice (as is there for the practice of untouchability). There isn't any.
no, no obligation on state to punish even if suicide is not included in right to life.......yehi saare confusion ka base tha matlab ab tak....@arindamsarkar
Exactly!
If it was, then state would also have had to punish selling peanuts on the street. That's not covered under right to life either. )
@ArindamSarkar to bhai agar ye baat pata thi to ye kyun lika ki since isko hatane ka judicial review nahi hua to something can be inferred................nothing can be inferred....from it....
@ArindamSarkar to bhai agar ye baat pata thi to ye kyun lika ki since isko hatane ka judicial review nahi hua to something can be inferred................nothing can be inferred....from it....
Tabhi clarification de diya tha. Nothing can be inferred. It's a correlation at best.
A and B walk together often → If A is walking B might walk too (correlation)
A and B walk together often → If A is walking B must walk too (wrong inference)
@ArindamSarkar okk how could you correlate even???? only correlation from your statement could be that there was no express obligation on state to punish for suicide attempt..............but that was never in doubt......it doesn't have any coorelation whether attempt to suicide is a constiutional right or not????? which was the main ques we had to discuss.....
Interesting discussion, sirs @ArindamSarkar@anshulforever . In public perception, there seems to be many misconceptions, so allow me to bring an example here.
Suppose a lunatic man beats some one who went to him to give him food. The man is so mad, so mad that he can't understand that the person actually came to feed him and not hurt him. What will the law do to that mad man? Will it punish him?
No. It won't. Judiciary will require the state to put that lunatic man in mental asylum.
Does this give the lunatic man a constitutional/legal right to beat any one? No.
Has the act of beating been given constitutional sanction? No.
What I want to point out here is that many a things, which are not permitted by constitution, are still not punished as such.
Similarly, the constitutional position will remain intact even if Govt passes Mental Healthcare Bill. The position is what is given in Gian Singh Kaur case: that is, there is NO Right to Die in constitution. This position can be changed only by a larger constitutional bench of Supreme Court, OR by parliament through "Constitutional Amendment Act".
Note that Mental Healthcare Bill is not a constitutional amendment bill. All it says is that rather than putting a suicide-attempter in jail, we will put him in mental hospital... (Similar to the lunatic man in our example above) This Does Not change constitutional position with respect to Euthanasia.
@ArindamSarkar okk how could you correlate even???? only correlation from your statement could be that there was no express obligation on state to punish for suicide attempt..............but that was never in doubt......it doesn't have any coorelation whether attempt to suicide is a constiutional right or not????? which was the main ques we had to discuss.....
Courts usually challenge issues that violate the constitution in any way. Here they have not. That could be interpreted as a correlation. Correlation doesn't imply causation, but correlations can exist between unrelated things too (like mentioned).
Attempt to suicide would be illegal if either the CoI or any statute prohibited it. In case of CoI, there wasn't any. Statute prohibited it - 309 IPC. That freed the state to decide for itself on the fate of its own statute.
The euthanasia issue in SC shows that passive suicide is a complicated issue. I was looking for the exact argument. It was this :
"the court opined that in the context of a terminally ill patient or one in the PVS, the right to die is not termination of life prematurely but rather accelerating the process of death which has already commenced."
Decriminalisation of suicide via abrogation of 309 IPC removes the statutory hurdle in this euthanasia issue as well.
Now what do you call this central argument of the Shanbaug case? I don't know whether to call it a constitutional right or not.
PS. Galat likha tha. Revision me glaring error dikh gaya. Is liye correct karne tak delete kar diya.
@ArindamSarkar sir my argument was absence of judicial review of removing sec 309 doesn't have any bearing on this question.............look at ck10203 comment.....he has made it more clear....
@ArindamSarkar sir my argument was absence of judicial review of removing sec 309 doesn't have any bearing on this question.............look at ck10203 comment.....he has made it more clear....
Like I accepted a long time back. Correlation doesn't imply causation. Correlation doesn't mean that judicial reviews has a bearing. I said that it 'might' - not that it does. Here it doesn't. (agree)
1. There is no right to die. Justicability of that is out of the question.
2. Right to life doesn't include the right to die. That's why 309 IPC was upheld by the SC.
3. Just because the CoI doesn't prescribe or proscribe something doesn't mean that laws cannot be made on it. That's why 309 IPC may or may not exist on the statutes.
4. GoI is free to abrogate any such law. Just because there is / isn't a right to something doesn't mean that a law would have to be enacted. Most criminal laws come up to defend rights but not all laws are based on them. (Sound right?)
5. Shanbaug case allowed passive euthanasia by accelerating the process of death passively.
So the million dollar question is whether right to die is a constitutional right?
We are a secret self-moderated community for Civil Services preparation. Feel free to join, start a discussion, answer a question or just to say Thank you.Just dont spread the word ;)Sign in or join with Facebook or Google
ForumIAS is India’s leading Online website for UPSC IAS Exam Online Preparation and guidance. At ForumIAS, we have a dream. Our dream is to make its members achieve their IAS dream. Today thousands of aspirants have joined the elite services such as IAS, IPS, IFS, IRS and other central and state services with the right inputs provided by ForumIAS. Take a look at our IAS Toppers
Free IAS Online Preparation Initiatives by ForumIAS
Current affairs is the most important part of UPSC IAS exam. ForumIAS provides a detailed analysis of important news articles through its 9PM brief. In current affairs reading Editorials Online needs an in-depth focus and hence we provide a separate analysis of daily editorials which is not found in any other website. Click the following link to access these free preparation initiatives in Portal . ForumIAS also provides compilations and Free downloads for UPSC IAS preparation
Knowing is never enough for IAS exam. An IAS aspirant must be engaged in answer writing practice to do well in UPSC IAS Mains Exam. ForumIAS has launched a Mains Marathon initiative for IAS mains Online answer writing. Click here to access UPSC Mains Marathon initiative . For Daily Must Read Newspaper articles, Visit Must Read Newspaper page here. Must Read Newspaper is an Initiative by Team ForumIAS to provide Current Affairs links to the Must Read Articles of The Day from Newspaper.
UPSC Syllabus
The most important part of UPSC IAS exam is its syllabus and there is a need to take an in-depth look at it. Click here to view the UPSC IAS Prelims syllabus. Visit UPSC IAS syllabus page here
UPSC IAS Study Material
ForumIAS is the repository of many toppers’ Online study materials for GS Mains and Optional subjects. The most unique thing about it is that they are handwritten by toppers themselves. Click here for UPSC sample notes
Interview Preparation for IAS
Interview is the last and crucial stage for becoming an IAS officer. How to prepare for it? We provide a solution. ForumIAS is the only online website where quality IAS interview preparations happen. Online Current affairs from an interview perspective are extensively discussed and specific preparation based on candidate’s profile and hobbies can be done. Please visit this link for UPSC Interview Preparation
At ForumIAS we have an exclusive Online page to read the UPSC Interview Transcripts
Indian Forest Service (IFoS)
IFoS is one of the most sought after All India Service. ForumIAS provides the right approach to excel in this exam through their toppers who have shared their success mantras and their study materials in an elaborate manner.
About Indian Administrative Service (IAS)
IAS is considered as one of the best jobs on earth. IAS officers hold the most important positions in Central and State Governments and in Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs). They also represent India in international organizations. They take the most important decisions in the administration of Government policies and development programs.
About Indian Police Service (IPS)
IPS officers occupy higher positions in the State Police Departments, Central Armed Police Forces and Intelligence Agencies. Their most important responsibilities are maintenance of Law and Order and internal security.
About Indian Foreign Service (IFS)
IFS officers serve as diplomats in international missions and embassies of India around the world and in prominent international organizations like United Nations (UN), World Bank, and IMF. They work to promote India’s interests from a bilateral and a global perspective.
The Study portal is a single point of online IAS preparation through its several initiatives like the Must Read News Articles, the 9 PM Brief, the Mains Marathon. If you are preparing for IAS exam online, ForumIAS is the place to go. ForumIAS is proud of ForumIAS Alumni in UPSC Service who have secured top Ranks in past 5 years.
Visit Us At
ForumIAS - Offline Guidance Centre
ForumIAS Academy, 1st Floor, IAPL House, 19, Pusa Road, Opposite Metro Pillar 95-96, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005,
View Google Map Location
Comments
If it was, then state would also have had to punish selling peanuts on the street. That's not covered under right to life either.
A and B walk together often → If A is walking B might walk too (correlation)
A and B walk together often → If A is walking B must walk too (wrong inference)
This is what I said at that time : http://forumias.com/discussion/comment/257681#Comment_257681
It's the old fallacy of assumption of causality from correlation. That would be wrong.
Suppose a lunatic man beats some one who went to him to give him food. The man is so mad, so mad that he can't understand that the person actually came to feed him and not hurt him.
What will the law do to that mad man? Will it punish him?
No. It won't.
Judiciary will require the state to put that lunatic man in mental asylum.
Does this give the lunatic man a constitutional/legal right to beat any one?
No.
Has the act of beating been given constitutional sanction?
No.
What I want to point out here is that many a things, which are not permitted by constitution, are still not punished as such.
Similarly, the constitutional position will remain intact even if Govt passes Mental Healthcare Bill. The position is what is given in Gian Singh Kaur case: that is, there is NO Right to Die in constitution. This position can be changed only by a larger constitutional bench of Supreme Court, OR by parliament through "Constitutional Amendment Act".
Note that Mental Healthcare Bill is not a constitutional amendment bill. All it says is that rather than putting a suicide-attempter in jail, we will put him in mental hospital... (Similar to the lunatic man in our example above)
This Does Not change constitutional position with respect to Euthanasia.
Attempt to suicide would be illegal if either the CoI or any statute prohibited it. In case of CoI, there wasn't any. Statute prohibited it - 309 IPC. That freed the state to decide for itself on the fate of its own statute.
The euthanasia issue in SC shows that passive suicide is a complicated issue. I was looking for the exact argument. It was this :
http://www.lawctopus.com/academike/aruna-ramchandra-shanbaug-v-union-of-india-case-analysis/
"the court opined that in the context of a terminally ill patient or one in the PVS, the right to die is not termination of life prematurely but rather accelerating the process of death which has already commenced."
Decriminalisation of suicide via abrogation of 309 IPC removes the statutory hurdle in this euthanasia issue as well.
Now what do you call this central argument of the Shanbaug case? I don't know whether to call it a constitutional right or not.
PS. Galat likha tha. Revision me glaring error dikh gaya. Is liye correct karne tak delete kar diya.
@ck10203 : That's exactly what we concluded here - http://forumias.com/discussion/comment/257841#Comment_257841
1. There is no right to die. Justicability of that is out of the question.
2. Right to life doesn't include the right to die. That's why 309 IPC was upheld by the SC.
3. Just because the CoI doesn't prescribe or proscribe something doesn't mean that laws cannot be made on it. That's why 309 IPC may or may not exist on the statutes.
4. GoI is free to abrogate any such law. Just because there is / isn't a right to something doesn't mean that a law would have to be enacted. Most criminal laws come up to defend rights but not all laws are based on them. (Sound right?)
5. Shanbaug case allowed passive euthanasia by accelerating the process of death passively.
So the million dollar question is whether right to die is a constitutional right?
Point number 1 answers that.
There is no right to die.
Agree?