Supreme Court Reserves Verdict on Plea for Passive Euthanasia
Background of the Case
The Supreme Court of India has reserved its judgment on a petition seeking permission for passive euthanasia of Harish Rana, a 31-year-old man who has remained in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) for over a decade.
The case has emerged as a potential first instance of judicially sanctioned passive euthanasia in India, where the Supreme Court may operationalise the legal framework laid down in its landmark Common Cause v Union of India (2018) judgment.
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan heard the matter, repeatedly acknowledging the ethical, moral, and constitutional dilemmas involved in adjudicating questions of life and death.
Medical History and Present Condition of the Patient
Harish Rana, a former student of Panjab University, suffered catastrophic head injuries in 2013 after falling from the fourth floor of his paying guest accommodation.
Since the accident:
He has remained completely unresponsive
He is bedridden and dependent on clinically assisted nutrition and hydration
He is not on a ventilator but requires 24-hour medical care
He has shown no neurological improvement for over 10 years
Despite continuous medical intervention, his condition has been declared irreversible by multiple medical boards.
Family’s Plea Before the Supreme Court
After years of treatment and home-based care, Harish’s parents approached the Supreme Court, arguing that:
Continued life-sustaining treatment serves no therapeutic purpose
It merely prolongs suffering
Withdrawal of such treatment would align with Harish’s right to die with dignity
The family specifically sought permission to withdraw clinically assisted nutrition and hydration, under medical supervision and palliative care protocols.
Medical Board Assessments and Findings
Primary Medical Board
A primary medical board comprising doctors from Ghaziabad and Meerut reported that:
Harish suffered from 100% disability quadriplegia
Chances of recovery were “negligible”
AIIMS Secondary Medical Board
Pursuant to Supreme Court directions, a secondary medical board at AIIMS submitted a detailed report on December 16, concluding:
There is little to no possibility of improvement
The neurological damage is irreversible
The condition meets the criteria contemplated under the Common Cause framework
The Court observed that the matter had reached the final stage envisaged under existing law.
Personal Interaction with the Family
In compliance with procedural safeguards, the bench held a direct interaction with Harish’s parents and sibling on January 13.
In its order dated January 14, the Court recorded:
The unanimous and anguished plea of the family
Their assertion that continuing treatment served no meaningful purpose
Their request to allow Harish to be spared further suffering
Constitutional Provisions Involved
Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
The core constitutional issue arises under Article 21, which the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted to include:
The right to live with dignity
The right to die with dignity, as distinguished from suicide
In Common Cause (2018), the Court held that forcing a person to live in a state of irreversible suffering violates Article 21.
Article 226 and Article 32
The present petition is also an example of the Supreme Court exercising its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 32 to protect fundamental rights when no effective alternative remedy exists.
Statutory Framework Relevant to Passive Euthanasia
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 306 (Abetment of Suicide) and Section 309 (Attempt to Suicide) do not apply to passive euthanasia, as clarified by judicial precedent.
Passive euthanasia involves withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, not an active act causing death.
Mental Healthcare Act, 2017
Recognises the right to refuse medical treatment
Supports the concept of advance directives, indirectly reinforcing the Common Cause principles
Judicial Precedents Governing the Issue
Common Cause v Union of India (2018)
This Constitution Bench judgment:
Legalised passive euthanasia
Recognised living wills and advance directives
Laid down a structured process involving medical boards and judicial oversight
The Court held that:
“The right to die with dignity is a fundamental right under Article 21.”
Aruna Shanbaug Case (2011)
Earlier, in Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v Union of India, the Court:
Allowed passive euthanasia under judicial supervision
Introduced the concept of court-approved withdrawal of treatment
Common Cause expanded and refined this framework.
Role of the Union Government
The Union government, represented by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, supported the plea and acknowledged that:
The Common Cause judgment has not been effectively implemented on the ground
This case may become the first practical application of those principles
The Union clarified that:
Withdrawal of treatment could be carried out either at home or at a palliative care facility
The family preferred care at IHBAS, Delhi, under medical supervision
Ethical Questions Raised by the Court
The bench raised broader concerns with systemic implications, including:
What happens when medical opinion conflicts with family wishes?
Should medical boards be constituted only after family consent is recorded?
How should states operationalise the Common Cause framework efficiently?
The Court also acknowledged the limits of judicial authority, noting the profound moral responsibility involved.
Significance of the Case
This case goes beyond individual facts and raises fundamental questions about:
Implementation of constitutional rights
Medical ethics and end-of-life care
State accountability in enforcing Supreme Court judgments
Human dignity in the face of irreversible suffering
A favourable verdict could:
Set a historic precedent
Push states to establish functional medical boards
Provide clarity on procedural safeguards for passive euthanasia
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s reserved verdict represents a constitutional moment for India’s end-of-life jurisprudence. It will determine whether the promise made in Common Cause (2018) finally moves from principle to practice.
At its heart, the case tests whether Indian constitutional law can balance human dignity, medical science, family autonomy, and judicial restraint—without reducing life to a mere biological existence.
The judgment, when delivered, is likely to redefine the legal and ethical contours of passive euthanasia in India.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment