The Supreme Court on Wednesday permitted passive euthanasia for Harish Rana, a 31-year-old man from Ghaziabad who has spent nearly 13 years in a permanent vegetative state after suffering severe head injuries in a fall during his student days.
A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan allowed the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, saying doctors could take a clinical decision in line with the principles laid down in the court’s 2018 judgment in Common Cause vs Union of India, which recognised passive euthanasia and the right to die with dignity.
The order came after Rana’s family approached the court, saying his condition had not improved despite years of treatment. Allowing the plea, the Bench directed that he be moved to the palliative care unit at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, where doctors will oversee the process of withdrawing medical support.
“In our considered view, it would be permissible for the medical Board to exercise its clinical judgment regarding the withdrawal of treatment in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Common Cause vs Union of India,” the court said.
A decade-long struggle for the family
Rana has been bedridden since 2013, when he fell from the fourth floor and suffered serious brain injuries. Medical reports say he has been in a permanent vegetative state with quadriplegia and complete disability, needing constant assistance for breathing, feeding and basic care.
Doctors who examined him found that he was dependent on a tracheostomy tube to breathe and a gastrostomy tube for nutrition. Medical experts concluded that the chances of recovery were negligible.
Advocate Manish Jain, who represented the family, said the court had permitted doctors to withdraw life-support systems.
“Harish Rana’s petition has been allowed. Permission has been granted to let him remain in a natural state, meaning all tubes and advanced life support systems will be removed,” Jain told IANS.
He added that Rana will remain under medical care at AIIMS. “He will remain at AIIMS, which will take robust care of him for as long as he lives,” the lawyer said.
The legal battle began when Rana’s parents approached the Delhi High Court seeking a medical board to examine whether passive euthanasia could be considered. The High Court rejected the plea, pointing out that active euthanasia is not allowed under Indian law.
The case reached the Supreme Court in August 2024, when the court issued notice to the Union government and explored ways to assist the family, which had been caring for Rana for over a decade.
In November 2024, the government proposed home-based medical assistance for Rana, including nursing care, physiotherapy visits, dietician support and free medicines. The court closed the matter then but allowed the family to return if further directions were needed.
Rana’s parents later approached the court again, stating that his condition had worsened. After hearing arguments and reviewing medical records, the Bench reserved its verdict on January 15 this year before delivering Wednesday’s decision.
The Aruna Shanbaug case and India’s euthanasia debate
The case inevitably recalls the long legal debate on euthanasia in India, shaped in part by the widely known Aruna Shanbaug case.
Shanbaug, a nurse at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Mumbai, was sexually assaulted by a hospital janitor in 1973. She suffered severe brain damage.
She remained in a persistent vegetative state for decades while being cared for at the hospital.
In 2011, the Supreme Court considered a plea filed by journalist-activist Pinki Virani seeking permission for euthanasia. While the court rejected the request in Shanbaug’s case, it delivered a landmark ruling that recognised passive euthanasia under certain safeguards and allowed the withdrawal of life support in appropriate circumstances.
Shanbaug died in May 2015 after spending nearly 42 years in a vegetative state.
Legal experts say the Supreme Court’s decision in the Harish Rana case reflects how the legal framework created through earlier rulings continues to guide courts in difficult questions around end-of-life care.