In a landmark development, the Supreme Court on Wednesday for the first time permitted passive euthanasia under the legal framework laid down in its 2018 Common Cause judgment, updated in 2023. The decision came from a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, marking a turning point in India's evolving right-to-die-with-dignity jurisprudence. The order was passed while hearing a plea filed by the father of 32-year-old Harish Rana, who has remained in an irreversible vegetative state for 13 years after suffering a devastating fall from a building.
The bench recorded the harrowing details of Rana's medical condition, observing that "Harish Rana, presently aged 32 years, was once a young, bright boy. He met with a tragic life-altering accident after a fall from the fourth floor of his paying guest accommodation. His brain injury left him in a condition of Persistent Vegetative State (PSV) with 100% quadraplegia... Medical reports show that his medical condition has not improved in the past 13 years." Notably, Rana is sustaining life only on Clinically Administered Nutrition (CAN) administered through surgically installed PEG tubes.
What did the court say?
The Court ordered that Harish be admitted to the palliative care unit at AIIMS so that medical treatment can be gradually withdrawn under professional supervision. The bench underlined that the entire process must be carried out with dignity, compassion and strict adherence to medical and ethical protocols. The judges noted that during an earlier hearing, they had spoken directly with Rana's family to understand their emotional and mental state before arriving at a decision.
According to the medical assessment submitted by AIIMS, there is no possibility of Rana recovering from his condition. Justice JB Pardiwala observed that the report was extremely distressing. "This is a very painful report... This is a difficult decision for us, but we cannot allow this boy to remain in such endless suffering. We have reached a stage today where a final decision must be taken," he said.
Court endorses medical board opinion
The bench held that Clinically Administered Nutrition qualifies as medical treatment and may be withdrawn when deemed appropriate by Primary and Secondary Medical Boards. Both boards, along with the parents, were unanimous that continuing CAN served no therapeutic purpose and only extended his biological existence without hope of improvement. Taking these findings into account, the Court permitted the withdrawal of life support, noting that doing so served the patient's best interest and upheld his right to die with dignity.
What is the Harish Rana case?
It is to be noted here that Harish Rana had been in a permanent unconscious state for nearly 13 years after falling from the fourth floor of his hostel while studying in Chandigarh in 2013. The accident caused severe brain injuries, leaving him fully bedridden with 100 per cent disability and no hope of recovery. His condition deteriorated over the years, developing multiple bed sores and complete dependency on life-sustaining nutrition. After his parents requested permission to end his prolonged suffering, the Court allowed passive euthanasia based on medical reports from AIIMS stating zero chances of improvement. The ruling marked the Court's first-ever approval of passive euthanasia under the right to die with dignity.
ALSO READ: Harish Rana case explained: How it differs from the Aruna Shanbaug case | Full timeline
