The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment permitting the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for a 32-year-old man who had been in a prolonged vegetative state for more than a decade. The ruling clarifies the legal position on passive euthanasia and expands the understanding of what constitutes life-support treatment under Indian law.
A bench comprising Justices J. B. Pardiwala and K. V. Viswanathan allowed the plea filed by the patient’s father, holding that continued medical intervention was only prolonging biological existence without any realistic hope of recovery.
Harish Rana, a student pursuing a B.Tech degree at Panjab University, suffered a severe brain injury in 2013 after falling from the fourth floor of his paying-guest accommodation. The accident caused irreversible neurological damage that left him in a coma.
Following the incident, he received treatment at the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGI), Chandigarh, where doctors attempted to stabilize his condition using intensive medical support. Despite treatment, he failed to regain consciousness.
Over the years, Rana required repeated medical care for complications such as seizures, infections, and bedsores. He was later treated at the Jai Prakash Narayan Trauma Centre at AIIMS, New Delhi, where doctors confirmed that he remained in a persistent vegetative state with no signs of awareness.
For more than a decade, he survived through clinically assisted nutrition delivered through feeding tubes.
Rana’s family approached the courts seeking permission to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, arguing that his condition had shown no improvement for years and that continuing medical support served no meaningful therapeutic purpose.
Medical boards constituted to review his health unanimously concluded that the damage to his brain was irreversible. According to expert assessments, the patient had no realistic chance of regaining consciousness.
The petition eventually reached the Supreme Court, which examined the medical reports and the legal framework governing passive euthanasia in India.
The Court also reviewed previous constitutional decisions that recognized the right to die with dignity as part of the right to life under Article 21.
While addressing the family, the bench acknowledged the emotional weight of the decision and recognized the compassion behind the parents’ request.
The judges observed that allowing a loved one to die with dignity in circumstances of irreversible suffering cannot be viewed as abandonment. Instead, the decision reflects an act of profound care when continued treatment merely prolongs suffering without hope of recovery.
The Court also clarified an important legal issue regarding clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH), including feeding through PEG or nasogastric tubes.
It held that such feeding mechanisms are medical interventions rather than ordinary nursing care. Therefore, when they serve only to artificially extend biological life without therapeutic benefit, they can legally be withdrawn following proper medical evaluation.
The bench emphasized that any such decision must be guided by the “best interests of the patient” and should follow strict medical review procedures to prevent misuse.
The Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for Harish Rana in accordance with the legal guidelines governing passive euthanasia.
The Court directed that he be shifted to the palliative care unit at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), where doctors will oversee a structured and medically supervised withdrawal of treatment.
Medical professionals at the facility have been instructed to ensure that the patient receives palliative care focused on comfort, pain management, and dignity during the final stages of care.
The judgment reiterates that while active euthanasia remains illegal in India, passive euthanasia through the withdrawal or withholding of medical treatment is permissible when strict safeguards are followed.
