Ethics · 22 Jul 2026

Common Cause v Union of India bodily autonomy

With reference to the constitutional and legal position on bodily autonomy in India, consider the following statements:

  1. The Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) judgment recognised a competent adult's right to refuse medical treatment as part of the right to life under Article
  2. 2. Attempted suicide remains a criminal offence under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code following the Mental Healthcare Act,
  3. 3. The doctrine of parens patriae refers to the state's protective, quasi-parental authority to act in a person's best interests, potentially overriding their stated wishes.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A1 only
B1 and 3 only
C2 and 3 only
D1, 2 and 3
This question is based on: The Hospital Bed as a Battlefield: What the Wangchuk Case Asks of the State
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 22 Jul 2026
About this question

Why in news

The Delhi High Court is hearing an appeal on activist Sonam Wangchuk's hospital transfer during his 23-day hunger strike, testing the tension between Article 21's guarantee of bodily autonomy and the state's duty to preserve life.

Why for UPSC

UPSC's GS4 paper frequently draws on live ethical dilemmas to test specific case law and doctrine - this question checks whether an aspirant has correctly internalized the direction of legal reform (decriminalisation) rather than assuming the older punitive position still holds.

Prelims summary

Common Cause (2018) recognised a competent adult's right to refuse treatment under Article 21; the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 decriminalised attempted suicide; parens patriae is the state's protective authority that can, in limited circumstances, override individual wishes.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.