What is meant by judicial legislation? In this context, discuss the verdicts of the apex court allowing “passive euthanasia” and a “living will”. (Answer in 250 words)

Judicial legislation describes judicial formulation of operative rules where legislation is absent or inadequate, through constitutional interpretation; it is legitimate only within constitutional text, rights and institutional limits.

Courts interpret law, fill interstitial gaps and issue guidelines to enforce Fundamental Rights, but cannot substitute personal policy preferences for Parliament. Separation of powers requires necessity, reasoned limits and subsequent legislative correction where appropriate.

In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court recognised the right to die with dignity as part of Article 21. It permitted withdrawal or withholding of futile life-sustaining treatment for a terminally ill or permanently incapacitated person, subject to informed choice, medical assessment and safeguards. Passive euthanasia differs from an intentional act to cause death.

The Court recognised an advance medical directive through which a competent adult records treatment preferences for future incapacity. It created procedures involving witnesses, medical boards and review to prevent coercion, error and misuse, while respecting autonomy, dignity and bodily integrity.

The verdicts operationalised Article 21 and patient autonomy in a sensitive legislative vacuum, but procedural complexity and later modifications show why Parliament should enact a clear, accessible statute with palliative-care safeguards, capacity standards and oversight.

judicial legislation; Article 21; Common Cause 2018; right to die with dignity; passive euthanasia; advance medical directive; living will; medical ethics