The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted passive euthanasia for a 32-year-old man in a vegetative state, marking the first instance of such a ruling in India, reported the PTI.
The court permitted the withdrawal of artificial life support of the man who has been in a comatose condition for more than 12 years.
The SC bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Vishwanathan, emphasised that this decision ensures the patient’s right to die with dignity, reported the ANI.
Passive euthanasia involves withdrawing life-sustaining treatment to allow a natural death for patients in a persistent vegetative state.
The apex court noted that continued administration of Clinically Assisted Nutrition (CAN) would not be in the patient’s best interest, as per multiple medical reports.
The patient who was identified as Harish Rana has reportedly been in a vegetative state for over a decade following an accidental fall.
The court has directed the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to transfer the patient to its palliative care department, where medical care will be withdrawn in a manner that preserves dignity, according to the ANI.
Justice Pardiwala referred to Shakespeare’s famous quote, “To be or not to be”, noting its relevance in interpreting the Right to Die. He also lauded the parents for their resilient care, saying: “You are not giving up on your son. You are allowing him to live with dignity.”
Application of common cause guidelines
The SC bench applied the guidelines established in the Common Cause v. Union of India case, stating that this is the first instance where the guidelines are being implemented fully by the Court, as per the ANI.
In November 2025, a medical board at Noida District Hospital was constituted to explore passive euthanasia for the patient.
Earlier, in October 2024, the Union Health Ministry issued draft Guidelines for Withdrawal of Life Support in Terminally Ill Patients, stipulating that life support can be withdrawn under conditions including –
– Brainstem death declared under THOA Act.
– Prognostic opinion that the patient’s condition is advanced with minimal chance of recovery.
– Documented refusal from patient or surrogate after understanding prognosis.
– Compliance with the procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court.
(with PTI and ANI inputs)