BREAKING | Supreme Court Permits Withdrawal Of Life Support In First Passive Euthanasia Case For Man In Vegetative State
Kiran Raj
In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court on Wednesday issued its first order permitting passive euthanasia under the framework laid down in its 2018 Common Cause judgement, later revised in 2023, which recognised the constitutional right to die with dignity.
A Division Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan approved the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for a 32-year-old man who has been in an irreversible permanent vegetative state for 13 years after falling from a building. The order came on a miscellaneous application filed by the man’s father, who sought permission to discontinue all forms of life support.
“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,” the Bench observed.
The Court noted that he has been kept alive only through Clinically Administered Nutrition (CAN), delivered via surgically inserted PEG tubes. It held that CAN amounts to medical treatment and may therefore be withdrawn based on the considered opinion of the Primary and Secondary Medical Boards. The Bench said the continuation of such treatment was only extending biological survival without offering any therapeutic benefit.
The judges also recorded that both the patient’s parents, along with the Primary and Secondary Medical Boards, were of the view that continuation of CAN was not in the patient’s best interest and should be stopped. The Court clarified that when both medical boards unanimously certify the withdrawal of life support, judicial intervention is not ordinarily required. However, since this was the first matter of its kind, the issue was placed before the Supreme Court. It further emphasized that the withdrawal process must be carried out in a humane and dignified manner.
The Court issued the following directions:
- All medical treatment, including CAN, is to be withdrawn or withheld, and the 30-day reconsideration period has been waived.
- AIIMS has been directed to admit the patient to its palliative care centre so the withdrawal of CAN can be implemented there. It must also provide the necessary assistance for shifting him from his residence to the facility.
- The withdrawal of life support must follow an individualized plan that preserves the patient’s dignity.
- High Courts across the country have been asked to issue directions to Judicial Magistrates to receive hospital intimations in line with the Common Cause guidelines whenever the Primary and Secondary Medical Boards unanimously decide to withdraw or withhold life support.
- The Union Government has been directed to ensure that Chief Medical Officers in all districts maintain panels of Registered Medical Practitioners for appointment to Secondary Medical Boards.
The Bench also suggested that the Union Government consider enacting a comprehensive law on the subject. While Justice Pardiwala authored the lead judgment, Justice Viswanathan delivered a concurring opinion. The Court also placed on record its appreciation for the dedication shown by Harish Rana’s parents over the years. “His family never left his side...to love someone is to care for them even in the darkest times,” Justice Pardiwala said.
In its 2018 Common Cause judgment, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had formally recognized the right to die with dignity and laid down the procedure for passive euthanasia. Those norms were later modified in January 2023. Under the existing framework, life support can be withdrawn only after approval by both the Primary and Secondary Medical Boards. This is the first case in which the Common Cause guidelines have been applied through a judicial order.
The petitioner, represented by his father, had initially moved the Delhi High Court in 2024 seeking permission for passive euthanasia. In July 2024, the High Court rejected the plea on the ground that he was not terminally ill.
The matter was then taken to the Supreme Court. In August 2024, the apex court declined to entertain the plea, though it directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to cover the patient’s medical expenses.
In 2025, a miscellaneous application was filed in the already disposed matter, stating that the patient’s condition had deteriorated further and that there was no possibility of recovery. The Court subsequently directed the formation of a Primary Medical Board to assess his health.
The Primary Medical Board concluded that the chances of recovery were negligible. It reported that he remained bedridden, dependent on a tracheostomy tube for breathing and a gastrostomy tube for feeding. Photographs placed before the Court also indicated severe bed sores.
Thereafter, the Supreme Court asked AIIMS to constitute a Secondary Medical Board for further evaluation. After reviewing its report, Justice Pardiwala described it as a “sad report” and remarked that the man could not be expected to continue living in such a condition. Before delivering the final ruling, the Bench also met the patient’s parents.
Advocate Rashmi Nandkumar appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati represented the Union of India.
Case Details: Harish Rana vs Union of India
Case No.: MA 2238/2025 in SLP(C) No. 18225/2024
Bench: Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan
