CASE ANALYSIS P RATHINAM VS UNION OF INDIA 
CASE ANALYSIS OF P RATHINAM VS UNION OF INDIA
CASE SUMMARY
P Rathinam vs Union of India was the first case in India to raise the issue of right to die before the Supreme court of India. The Supreme court of India entertained the writ petition. The major question that this case answered and addressed was that if the offence of committing suicide under section 309 of the Indian Penal Code is somewhere conflicting with the article 21 of the Indian Constitution that provides right to live. Further the case discussed the status of the Indian citizens with regard to the right to die.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner had attempted a suicide attempt due to an unruly circumstance that had risen. A legal proceedings was initiated against the petitioner under the section 306 of The Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner challenged this proceeding by filing a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India questioning the validity of section 309 of IPC with article 21 of the Indian constitution.
ARGUEMENTS BY THE PETITIONER
The main issue that the petitioner raised was whether the section 309 of the IPC violates the Article 21 of the Indian constitution.
Sec 309 lays provisions and rule laid down with regard to the attempt to commit suicide. It reads whosever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for the term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both.
Article 21 reads protection of life and personal liberty. No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except to procedure established by law.
Article 21 confers right to live as a positive right but every law carries another aspect. Here right not to live is the other aspect of article 21 that has not been mentioned in this article. Article 19 of the Indian constitution
CASE SUMMARY
P Rathinam vs Union of India was the first case in India to raise the issue of right to die before the Supreme court of India. The Supreme court of India entertained the writ petition. The major question that this case answered and addressed was that if the offence of committing suicide under section 309 of the Indian Penal Code is somewhere conflicting with the article 21 of the Indian Constitution that provides right to live. Further the case discussed the status of the Indian citizens with regard to the right to die.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner had attempted a suicide attempt due to an unruly circumstance that had risen. A legal proceedings was initiated against the petitioner under the section 306 of The Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner challenged this proceeding by filing a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India questioning the validity of section 309 of IPC with article 21 of the Indian constitution.
ARGUEMENTS BY THE PETITIONER
The main issue that the petitioner raised was whether the section 309 of the IPC violates the Article 21 of the Indian constitution.
Sec 309 lays provisions and rule laid down with regard to the attempt to commit suicide. It reads whosever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for the term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both.
Article 21 reads protection of life and personal liberty. No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except to procedure established by law.
Article 21 confers right to live as a positive right but every law carries another aspect. Here right not to live is the other aspect of article 21 that has not been mentioned in this article. Article 19 of the Indian constitution