Supreme Court Permits Passive Euthanasia for 31-Year-Old Man in Landmark Order

New Delhi, 11th March 2026: The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for a 31-year-old man who has remained in a permanent vegetative state for more than 13 years following a severe brain injury. The court also issued directions aimed at streamlining procedures related to passive euthanasia across the country.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan granted the request made by the family of Harish Rana, observing that his condition had shown no improvement despite years of medical treatment.

Rana has remained in a persistent vegetative state since suffering a traumatic brain injury after falling from the fourth floor of his paying guest accommodation while he was a B.Tech student at an institute in Chandigarh 13 years ago. According to the court, he displays sleep–wake cycles but has no meaningful interaction with his surroundings and is entirely dependent on caregivers for daily activities.

Medical reports presented before the court stated that Rana has been surviving through clinically assisted nutrition and hydration administered via a PEG tube, with doctors confirming that there has been no sign of recovery over the years.

While allowing the withdrawal of life support, the bench emphasised the sensitivity of the issue, observing that such a decision should not be interpreted as choosing death but rather as refraining from artificially prolonging life. The judges acknowledged the emotional strain faced by the family while deciding to allow the natural course of events.

Along with the ruling, the apex court directed high courts across the country to ensure that Judicial Magistrates of First Class (JMFCs) are formally informed by hospitals whenever a primary medical board unanimously decides to withdraw or withhold life support in accordance with existing legal guidelines.

The court also instructed the Union government and the health departments of all states and Union territories to ensure that chief medical officers maintain panels of qualified registered medical practitioners who can serve on such medical boards when decisions regarding withdrawal of life support are considered.

The bench clarified that such decisions must strictly follow the framework laid down in the landmark judgment of Common Cause v. Union of India, which formally recognised passive euthanasia and validated the concept of a “living will” or advance directive.

The legal foundation for passive euthanasia in India had earlier been discussed in the case of Aruna Shanbaug, whose prolonged vegetative state following a brutal assault led to a landmark legal debate on end-of-life decisions.

In its 2018 Constitution Bench ruling, the Supreme Court held that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to live with dignity, which also extends to ensuring a dignified end-of-life process for patients who are terminally ill or in an irreversible vegetative state.

Rana’s family had initially approached the Delhi High Court seeking the formation of a medical board to evaluate his condition and consider withdrawal of life support under the 2018 guidelines. However, the High Court declined the request, noting that he was not dependent on mechanical life support and was not terminally ill.

In 2024, his parents challenged the decision before the Supreme Court, requesting a reassessment of his medical condition through a medical board. Although the apex court initially declined to intervene, it allowed the family to return if further directions were required.

With Rana’s condition remaining unchanged and medically irreversible, his father later filed a fresh petition. After hearing detailed arguments, the bench reserved its verdict on January 15 and subsequently delivered its decision permitting passive euthanasia in the case.