UPSC Daily Current Affairs - 20th January 2026
Relevance:
UPSC – GS Paper II – Government Policies & Interventions – Judiciary, Constitutional Interpretation – Fundamental Rights (Article 21)
GS Paper IV – Ethics in Public Administration – Moral Philosophy (Autonomy vs Sanctity of Life)
Important Keywords
For Prelims:
- Passive euthanasia, Active euthanasia, Right to die with dignity, Article 21, Living Will / Advance Medical Directive, BNS 2023, Aruna Shanbaug case
For Mains:
- Palliative care, Ethical autonomy, Sanctity of life, End-of-life governance, Judicial activism, Health ethics
Why in News?
- The Supreme Court reserved its judgment in Harish Rana vs Union of India (2025), a plea seeking permission to withdraw life-sustaining treatment.
- The petitioner has been in a permanent vegetative state for 13 years with 100% quadriplegic disability.
- The case reopens the national debate on passive euthanasia, living wills, and the right to die with dignity.
Background: Harish Rana Case (2025–26)
- Bedridden since 2013 after a severe fall.
- Family sought withdrawal of life support citing irreversible suffering.
- Medical boards unanimously recommended discontinuation of treatment.
- Supreme Court personally interacted with the family.
- Judgment reserved (January 2026).
What is Euthanasia?
Definition
- Intentional hastening of death to relieve unbearable suffering from terminal illness.
Types
- Active: Direct act (lethal injection) → Illegal in India
- Passive: Withdrawal/withholding treatment → Legal under guidelines
Consent-Based
- Voluntary
- Non-voluntary
- Involuntary (illegal)
Legal Framework in India
Statutory Law
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023
- Section 100 – Culpable homicide
- Section 101 – Murder
- Section 108 – Abetment of suicide
- Active euthanasia prohibited
Constitutional Basis
- Article 21 – Right to Life includes Right to Die with Dignity (SC interpretation)
Judicial Evolution of Euthanasia
| Case | Contribution |
| Maruti Dubal (1987) | Right to die recognized (HC) |
| Gian Kaur (1996) | Right to die rejected |
| Aruna Shanbaug (2011) | Passive euthanasia permitted |
| Common Cause (2018) | Living wills recognized |
| SC Simplification (2023) | Faster approval process |
Procedure for Passive Euthanasia (Current)
Two Medical Boards
- Primary Board – Hospital level
- Secondary Board – District level
2023 Reforms
- Experience requirement reduced (20 → 5 years)
- 48-hour deadline fixed
- Board size reduced to 3 members
- Faster, patient-friendly process
Global Legal Landscape
| Country | Status |
| Netherlands, Belgium | Active & Assisted |
| Canada, Australia | Legal under safeguards |
| Switzerland | Assisted suicide |
| France, Italy | Passive euthanasia |
| India | Passive only (regulated) |
Ethical Debate
In Favour
- Autonomy & self-determination
- Relief from unbearable suffering
- Prevents futile treatment
- Reduces financial/emotional burden
- Supported by utilitarian ethics
Against
- Sanctity of life (Kantian ethics)
- Risk of coercion & misuse
- Weak mental health assessment systems
- Unequal healthcare access
- Legal ambiguity for doctors
Key Challenges in India
- No comprehensive parliamentary law
- Cumbersome procedures for poor patients
- Low awareness of living wills
- Limited palliative care coverage
- Fear among doctors of legal liability
Way Forward
Legal Reforms
- Enact a dedicated End-of-Life Care Act
- Codify SC guidelines in legislation
Administrative Reforms
- Hospital ethics committees
- Digital integration of living wills
Healthcare Reforms
- Universal palliative care under Ayushman Bharat
- ASHA training in pain management
Safeguards
- Psychiatric evaluation
- Cooling-off periods
- Social worker assessment
Public Awareness
- National campaign on living wills
- Ethical consensus building
Conclusion
The Harish Rana case highlights the urgent need for legislative clarity, humane procedures, and strong safeguards in end-of-life care. While dignity and autonomy must be respected, protection of vulnerable groups is equally essential. India must now move from judicial patchwork to a comprehensive rights-based framework for dignified death.
UPSC PYQ
Q. Right to Privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of Right to Life and Personal Liberty. Which of the following in the Constitution of India correctly and appropriately imply the above statement? (2018)
(a) Article 14 and the provisions under the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution.
(b) Article 17 and the Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV.
(c) Article 21 and the freedoms guaranteed in Part III.
(d) Article 24 and the provisions under the 44th Amendment to the Constitution.
Ans: (c)
CARE MCQ
Consider the following statements regarding euthanasia in India:
- Active euthanasia is permitted under Supreme Court guidelines.
- Passive euthanasia is legal under Article 21 with safeguards.
- Living wills were recognized in Common Cause case (2018).
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
A. 2 and 3 only
B. 1 and 2 only
C. 3 only
D. 1, 2 and 3
Answer: A
Explanation:
- Active euthanasia remains illegal.
- Passive euthanasia and living wills are constitutionally permitted under Article 21.
Relevance:
GS Paper I – Social issues: poverty, migration, child labour, exploitation – Vulnerable groups and social justice
GS Paper II – Fundamental Rights (Article 21, 23, 24)– Government policies for protection of vulnerable sections
Important Keywords
For Prelims:
- Child Trafficking, Palermo Protocol, 2000, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 – Section 143, Exploitation (Sexual, Forced Labour, Slavery, Organ Removal), Articles 23 & 24 (Prohibition of Trafficking & Child Labour), Article 39(e) & 39(f), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs)
For Mains:
- Right to Life and Dignity (Article 21), Human Rights Violation, Child Vulnerability & Socio-economic Marginalisation, Low Conviction Rate (4.8%), Institutional Failure & Policing Gaps, Federal Coordination Challenge, Digital Exploitation Ecosystem, Victim-Centric Justice, Deterrence vs Rehabilitation, Preventive & Humanistic Approach
Why in News?
- The Supreme Court in K. P. Kiran Kumar vs State (2025) issued strict guidelines to prevent child trafficking.
- The Court held that trafficking is a gross violation of children’s right to life and dignity under Article 21.
- NCRB data shows 53,000+ children rescued (2024–25), but conviction rate remains extremely low at 4.8%, highlighting systemic failure.
What is Child Trafficking?
International Definition
- The Palermo Protocol (2000) defines child trafficking as recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring, or receipt of a child for exploitation.
- Consent is irrelevant in case of children due to inherent vulnerability.
Indian Legal Definition
- Section 143 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 defines trafficking broadly.
- It includes:
- Physical and sexual exploitation
- Forced labour and servitude
- Slavery-like practices
- Forced removal of organs
- The offence is punishable irrespective of consent.
Constitutional & Legal Protection of Children in India
Constitutional Safeguards
- Article 21: Right to life with dignity
- Article 23: Prohibition of trafficking and forced labour
- Article 24: Ban on child labour in hazardous industries
- Article 39(e) & (f): Protection from abuse and abandonment
Statutory Framework
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Sections 98, 99, 143 (selling, buying, trafficking of minors)
- POCSO Act, 2012: Sexual exploitation, child pornography, strict punishment
- Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956: Sexual exploitation
- Juvenile Justice Act, 2015: Care, protection, rehabilitation
- Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013: Expanded definition of trafficking
- Fast Track POCSO Courts: Speedy trials for child abuse case
Judicial Approach to Child Trafficking
- Vishal Jeet vs Union of India (1990)
→ Recognised trafficking as a socio-economic problem needing prevention and rehabilitation - M.C. Mehta vs State of Tamil Nadu (1996)
→ Prohibited child labour in hazardous industries - Bachpan Bachao Andolan vs Union of India (2011)
→ Issued directions for rescue, rehabilitation, and prosecution - K. P. Kiran Kumar vs State (2025)
→ Declared trafficking a direct violation of Article 21
→ Issued binding guidelines to States and police
Why Does Child Trafficking Continue in India?
Socio-economic Causes
- Poverty, unemployment, migration, disasters
- Family breakdown and social exclusion
- Marginalised communities face higher vulnerability
Governance & Policing Gaps
- Low conviction rate (4.8%)
- Poor inter-state coordination
- Lack of specialised training for police and prosecutors
Digital & Online Exploitation
- Social media used for recruitment
- Fake job, modelling, and marriage offers
- Absence of strong digital monitoring
Importance of Centre–State Coordination
- Police and law & order are State subjects
- Trafficking networks operate across state borders
- Effective counter-trafficking requires:
- Joint task forces
- Real-time data sharing
- Unified rescue and rehabilitation protocols
Way Forward: How India Can Tackle Child Trafficking
1. Strengthen Social Protection
- Universal education, nutrition, and livelihood support
- Targeted support for migrant and marginalised families
2. Improve Law Enforcement
- Specialised anti-trafficking units
- Training in victim-sensitive investigation
- Fast-track courts for trafficking offences
3. Increase Conviction Rates
- Witness protection
- Dedicated prosecutors
- Use of digital evidence and AI tracking
4. Regulate Digital Platforms
- Monitoring online recruitment
- Mandatory reporting of suspicious content
- Platform accountability under IT laws
5. Strengthen Rehabilitation
- Long-term counselling
- Skill training and education
- Community reintegration programmes
Conclusion
Child trafficking is a constitutional failure as much as a social tragedy. While India has strong laws and active courts, weak implementation and structural vulnerabilities continue to fuel the crime. Only a rights-based, cooperative, and child-centric governance approach can ensure safety, dignity, and freedom for every child.
UPSC PYQ
Which of the following are envisaged as being part of the ‘Right against Exploitation’ in the Constitution of India? (CDS-II/2011)
- Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour.
- Abolition of untouchability.
- Protection of the interests of the minorities.
- Prohibition of employment of children in factories and mines.
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
A. 1 and 2
B. 1 and 3
C. 1 and 4
D. 2, 3 and 4
Answer: C
Explanation
The Right against Exploitation is a specific category of Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution comprising Articles 23 and 24.
- Article 23 prohibits traffic in human beings, begar, and other forms of forced labour → Statement 1 is correct.
- Article 24 prohibits the employment of children below 14 years in factories, mines, or hazardous occupations → Statement 4 is correct.
The other statements belong to different Fundamental Rights:
- Abolition of untouchability (Statement 2) falls under the Right to Equality (Article 17).
- Protection of minorities’ interests (Statement 3) falls under Cultural and Educational Rights (Article 29).
Therefore, only statements 1 and 4 are part of the Right against Exploitation.
CARE MCQ
Q. Consider the following statements regarding child trafficking in India:
- Under the Palermo Protocol, consent is irrelevant in child trafficking cases.
- The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 includes organ removal within the definition of trafficking.
- Centre–State coordination is unnecessary as trafficking is a State subject.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
A. 1 and 2 only
B. 2 and 3 only
C. 1 only
D. 1, 2 and 3
Answer: A
- Statement 1 is correct.
Under the Palermo Protocol (2000), child trafficking is defined as recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring, or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation, and consent is irrelevant because children are legally incapable of giving informed consent. This is a core principle of international anti-trafficking law. - Statement 2 is correct.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, in its definition of trafficking (Section 143), explicitly includes forced removal of organs within the scope of exploitation, along with sexual exploitation, forced labour, slavery, and servitude. - Statement 3 is incorrect.
Although police and law & order are State subjects, child trafficking networks operate across districts, states, and even international borders. Therefore, strong Centre–State coordination is essential for intelligence sharing, rescue, rehabilitation, and prosecution. Declaring it unnecessary contradicts both legal practice and Supreme Court guidelines.
