Each question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Such principles may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principles except the principles that are given herein below for every question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the object of this section to test your knowledge of law.

PRINCIPLE: The Constitution of India guarantees the 'right to life', which means 'right to live with human dignity'. The right to life under the Constitution, however, does not include the right to die.

FACTS: 'M', who is 90, lives all alone as he has no family or children or grandchildren. He suffers from physical and mental distress, as there is no one to look after him. He has little means to foot his medical expenses. Under these circumstances, he approaches the court with a prayer that he should be granted the right to die with dignity because he does not want to be a burden on the society. Further, as it is his life, he has a right to put an end to it.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

The correct answer is: "The prayer cannot be granted, as the right to life under the Constitution does not include the right to die."

Let us carefully analyze the principle and the facts, and then evaluate why this is the only legally correct conclusion.

Step 1: Identify and Understand the Governing Principle

The principle explicitly states two things:
1. The Constitution of India guarantees the right to life, which means the right to live with human dignity.
2. Critically: The right to life under the Constitution does NOT include the right to die.

This principle is the supreme rule we must apply. We cannot deviate from it, add to it, or override it with personal reasoning or external legal knowledge.

Step 2: Understand the Facts

'M' is a 90-year-old individual who:
- Lives alone with no family support
- Suffers from physical and mental distress
- Has limited means to pay for medical care
- Approaches the court seeking the right to die with dignity, arguing he does not wish to be a burden on society and that it is his life to end

M's prayer is essentially a request for the legal recognition of the right to die.

Step 3: Apply the Principle to the Facts

No matter how sympathetic M's circumstances are — his age, loneliness, distress, and financial hardship — the governing principle is unambiguous: the right to life does not include the right to die. This is the boundary the principle draws, and we are instructed to treat it as conclusively true.

M's argument that "it is his life and he has a right to put an end to it" is a personal moral claim, but it has no legal basis under the stated principle. The right to life, as defined here, is a positive right — a right to live with dignity — and does not transform into a negative right to terminate life.

Step 4: Evaluate and Eliminate the Incorrect Options

Option 1 — "The prayer can be granted, as suicide is not an offence in India": This introduces an external legal fact (decriminalization of suicide) which we are forbidden from assuming. We must rely only on the given principle, which does not mention this. This option is incorrect.

Option 2 — "The prayer can be granted, as the right to life includes the right to die": This directly contradicts the stated principle, which explicitly says the right to life does not include the right to die. This option is incorrect.

Option 3 — "The prayer can be granted, as a person cannot be forced to enjoy the right to life to his detriment": This argument, while emotionally appealing, is a philosophical interpretation that goes beyond the principle. The principle does not grant any such exception. We must not assume facts or extend principles beyond what is stated. This option is incorrect.

Option 4 — "The prayer cannot be granted, as the right to life under the Constitution does not include the right to die": This directly and faithfully applies the stated principle to the facts. Since M's prayer is for the right to die, and the principle clearly excludes this from the scope of the right to life, the court cannot grant his prayer. This option is correct.

Conclusion

The key skill tested here is strict application of the given principle, not sympathy for the petitioner or independent legal knowledge. Despite M's genuinely difficult circumstances, the principle forms an absolute bar. The court must reject the prayer because the constitutional right to life, as defined in the principle, does not encompass the right to die — and no other external consideration can override this stated rule.