Supreme Court allows passive euthanasia for Harish Rana in historic verdict

The court ruled that clinically assisted nutrition qualifies as medical treatment and can be withdrawn if medical boards recommend it, reiterating that the key test is whether continuing treatment serves the patient's best interest.

32-year-old Harish Rana, who has been in a coma ever since a fall 13 years ago left him with severe brain injuries, has been allowed to die by the Supreme Court. This marks the first-ever case of a court-ordered passive euthanasia in the country. The verdict, which clarified several aspects of a 2018 Supreme Court judgment that recognised the legality of passive euthanasia, was delivered by an emotional bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan.

The bench permitted Rana’s parents to withdraw medical support, holding that the key question in such cases is not whether death is in a patient’s best interest, but whether continuing life-sustaining treatment serves the patient’s best interest.

The court also clarified that clinically administered nutrition qualifies as a form of medical treatment. It said such treatment can be withdrawn if medical boards examining the patient conclude that there is no meaningful prospect of recovery and recommend withdrawal of support.

Reading out the judgment, the bench noted that Rana was once “a bright young boy” pursuing his studies when a fall led to catastrophic brain injuries that left him in a persistent vegetative state. Medical reports placed before the court showed no improvement in his condition over the past 13 years, and he remains entirely dependent on others for survival.

The ruling relied on the legal principles laid down in the Common Cause vs Union of India, which recognised the right to die with dignity as part of the fundamental right to life under the Constitution.

The court observed that two key conditions must be satisfied before life-sustaining treatment can be withdrawn: the intervention must qualify as medical treatment, and the decision must be guided by the patient’s best interests. It added that clinically assisted nutrition involves complex medical and ethical considerations and therefore requires careful evaluation by medical experts before withdrawal.