The family of Harish Rana, the first person in India to be granted passive euthanasia through a legal process, donated his corneas and heart valves following his death at AIIMS Delhi on Tuesday. Rana’s last rites were performed at the Green Park cremation ground in the national capital earlier today, marking the end of a long medical and legal journey that had drawn national attention.
He passed away at 4:10 pm under the care of a specialised team in the Palliative Oncology Unit at the Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital (IRCH). He had been undergoing long-term treatment under a team led by Prof. Seema Mishra, head of Onco-Anaesthesia. The institute expressed condolences to the family.
Passive euthanasia involves withdrawing or withholding medical treatment that keeps a patient alive, allowing natural death in cases where recovery is not possible.
Organ donation after prolonged illness
Family members chose to donate Rana’s corneas and heart valves, turning a deeply personal loss into a contribution that could help save lives.
Speaking after paying his respects, Uttar Pradesh Congress president Ajay Rai noted that despite years of struggle to keep their son alive, the family chose to donate his organs, setting an example for the country. He said, “The family dedicated their entire life and tried to save their child. The family has donated five organs of their child, giving inspiration to the country that a child who was ill for so many years, dedicated himself completely to the country.”
Delhi: The mortal remains of Harish Rana, the first person in India permitted passive euthanasia, were cremated by his brother Ashish Rana and sister Bhavna pic.twitter.com/PFBc5WH97C
— IANS (@ians_india) March 25, 2026
Landmark Supreme Court ruling
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia for Rana, a 31-year-old from Ghaziabad who had remained in a persistent vegetative state since 2013 following a fall from a building.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Vishwanathan permitted the withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration, noting that continuing life-sustaining treatment would not serve the patient’s best interests.
The court observed that the family and medical boards were in agreement on the decision, and expressed concern over the absence of a comprehensive legal framework governing end-of-life care.