The Supreme Court has allowed India’s first ever passive euthanasia, permitting the withdrawal of life support for 32-year-old Harish Rana. Injured in a 2013 fall, he has remained 100% quadriplegic and bedridden for over 13 years.
The Supreme Court permitted the withdrawal of life support for 32-year-old Harish Rana. Mr. Rana suffered severe head injuries in a 2013 fall and has been 100% quadriplegic and bedridden for more than 13 years.
The court’s decision followed extensive, carefully staged consultations with Mr. Rana’s family, medical panels, counsel for both the relatives and the Centre.
What is passive euthanasia?
Active euthanasia involves a physician administering a lethal drug or injection to end the life of a person who has no chance of recovery. It is permitted in countries such as the US, Canada, Australia, and parts of Europe but not in India.
Passive euthanasia, by contrast, means allowing a patient to die naturally by stopping or not initiating life-sustaining treatment. Patients or their relatives can refuse interventions such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation, ventilator support, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, dialysis or specialized nutrition.
What is the procedure for passive euthanasia in India?
In 2024, the Union Health Ministry published draft guideline based on the Supreme Court’s 2023 directions outlining how hospitals should proceed when withholding or withdrawing care. First, the treating physician must determine whether the patient has any realistic chance of recovery or a reasonable quality of life if treatment continues.
Next, a primary medical board must review the case and reach a consensus; this board includes the treating physician and two subject-matter experts with at least five years’ experience. The doctors must then explain the prognosis to the family and discuss alternative treatment preferences. A shared decision is required, and the medical team should prepare a consistent care plan.
If the family and treating team agree that life-sustaining measures should be withdrawn, they must forward a request to a secondary medical board, which comprises a doctor appointed by the district chief medical officer (CMO) and two subject experts with at least five years’ experience.
That secondary board must decide within 48 hours. Hospitals are also required to notify magistrates before withdrawing treatment, although magistrate approval is not necessary.
What has the apex court said in the Harish Rana case?
The Supreme Court on 11th March, 2026, clarified the legal standard for assessing a patient’s “best interests” in passive euthanasia cases and approved discontinuing life-sustaining treatment for a man who has been in a vegetative state since 2013.
A Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan held that the “best interest” principle must not be interpreted narrowly or rigidly. Determining what constitutes a patient’s best interests, the Court said, requires careful consideration of all relevant factors medical and non-medical.
After surveying how the best-interest standard is applied internationally, the Court identified key factors to be weighed, including:
- the patient’s medical prognosis;
- the invasiveness and likely futility of treatment;
- the patient’s dignity and welfare; and
- the perspectives of next of kin, next friend, or guardian who have cared for the patient.
The Court observed that modern medical technology can sustain biological life even when recovery is not possible, creating difficult ethical and legal dilemmas. In such cases, it said, the law should prioritize the patient’s welfare and dignity rather than focusing solely on the possibility of life extension by artificial means.
It further stated,
“The best interests principle shall incorporate a strong element of the substituted judgment standard, requiring the decisionmaker to place himself, so far as possible, in the position of the patient and to consider in a patient-centric manner what that patient would have wanted if he had capacity to do so.”
The matter before the Court concerned a petition by the parents of Harish Rana, a 32-year-old who has remained in a permanent vegetative state since a 2013 accident.
Rana suffered severe brain injury and has been dependent on artificial nutrition and medical support since then. His parents sought permission to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, including clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH), arguing his condition was irreversible and that continued life support served no meaningful purpose.
Medical records presented to the Court indicated irreversible brain damage and a non-progressive vegetative condition lasting more than a decade. The Court examined whether continued CANH via a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube could be regarded as “medical treatment” that may be withdrawn under the passive euthanasia framework established in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018).
Finding that artificial feeding via PEG constituted medical intervention, the Court clarified that CANH may be withdrawn where the statutory and judicial safeguards applicable to passive euthanasia are satisfied.
It concluded that Rana’s condition was irreversible and that continuing artificial life support offered no therapeutic benefit; accordingly, withdrawal of CANH and other life-sustaining measures would align with the patient’s best interests.
The Court emphasized that its decision was confined to the passive euthanasia framework recognized in Common Cause, which permits withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment under judicial supervision and medical safeguards. It reiterated that active euthanasia remains unlawful in India.
The judgment acknowledged and commended Rana’s family for their dedicated care over thirteen years. The Bench recorded deep sadness at the circumstances, noting the fragility of life and the severity of Rana’s suffering, while expressing profound respect for the parents and siblings who provided “unyielding pillars of support.”
It added,
“We can only place on record our deepest appreciation for their boundless love, endurance, and kindness in the face of such adversity.”
The Court stressed that permitting withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment is not tantamount to choosing death but is about recognizing when medical intervention no longer improves life.
It observed,
“Our decision today does not neatly fit within logic and reason alone. It sits in a space between love, loss, medicine and mercy. This decision is not about choosing death, but is rather one of not artificially prolonging life. It is the decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment when that treatment no longer heals, restores, or meaningfully improves life. It is allowing nature to take its course when medicine can only delay the inevitable because survival is not always the same as living.”
Addressing Rana’s family, the Court acknowledged the emotional difficulty of the ruling: what may feel like surrender can be an act of compassion and courage.
It said,
“You are not giving up on your son. You are allowing him to leave with dignity,”
The Bench also highlighted the absence of a comprehensive statutory framework on end-of-life decisions in India. Despite Law Commission recommendations in 2006 and 2012, Parliament has not enacted a dedicated law governing end-of-life care and withdrawal of treatment.
The Court urged the Central Government to consider legislating clear legal safeguards so that such decisions are not driven by financial constraints or insurance gaps.
Finally, the Court criticized the common hospital practice of discharging vegetative patients “against medical advice” (DAMA), which can shift responsibility away from medical institutions.
It held that hospitals should instead offer structured palliative and end-of-life care plans for such patients.
What was the Aruna Shanbaug case?
In 1973, 24-year-old nurse Aruna Shanbaug, then working at Mumbai’s KEM Hospital, was attacked by a ward boy and sustained severe brain injuries. She survived but remained in a persistent vegetative state and was cared for by hospital staff.
Aruna Shanbaug was a young nurse working at Mumbai’s King Edward Memorial (KEM) Hospital. On November 27, 1973, after completing her shift, she was brutally attacked inside the hospital premises.
According to reports, Shanbaug had an altercation with a hospital ward boy, Sohanlal Valmiki. Valmiki later claimed in interviews that he had a strained relationship with her and accused her of frequently reprimanding him. He said that on the day of the incident Shanbaug refused his leave request, which led to an argument. In anger, he allegedly slapped her and left.
However, Shanbaug was later found severely injured inside the hospital. There was blood around her, and she was discovered leaning against a stool with a dog chain tightly wrapped around her neck. Medical reports revealed that she had been strangled with the chain and sexually assaulted.
The strangulation caused severe oxygen deprivation to her brain, leading to permanent neurological damage. Valmiki was later convicted of attempted murder and robbery for stealing Shanbaug’s watch and earrings, but he was not convicted of rape.
In 2009, journalist-activist Pinki Virani filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court asking that hospital personnel stop feeding Aruna so that the patient “die peacefully”.
The Supreme Court admitted the plea and appointed a medical panel to examine Shanbaug’s condition. The panel concluded that she satisfied most of the criteria of a patient in a permanent vegetative state.
On March 7, 2011, the Supreme Court delivered a historic judgment. The Court laid down guidelines legalising passive euthanasia in India under certain circumstances. It ruled that a decision to withdraw life support should normally be taken by the patient’s parents, spouse, or close relatives. In cases where such relatives are absent, the decision could be taken by a person or group acting as a “next friend”.
In Shanbaug’s case, Pinki Virani had approached the Court claiming to be her “next friend”.
What did the court decide in that case?
In March 2011, a bench of the Supreme Court led by Justice Markandey Katju outlined a procedure and permitted high courts to decide applications from relatives seeking permission to discontinue life support for terminally ill or incapacitated persons.
The court required that at least two judges approve such petitions, which should be supported by the opinion of a panel of three reputable physicians.
How did the 2018 order by a larger SC bench define euthanasia?
In a petition by the NGO Common Cause challenging cruel treatment of terminal patients, a five-member bench recognised the right to die with dignity for terminally ill individuals.
The court allowed passive euthanasia through a living will in which a person can refuse medical treatment, and it required confirmation from two separate medical boards for each case.
What is the difference between active and passive euthanasia?
Active euthanasia involves a direct medical act that causes death, for example administering a lethal injection. Passive euthanasia involves stopping medical treatment, such as withdrawing life support.
What changed in the SC euthanasia guidelines in 2023?
In 2023, the Supreme Court relaxed the procedure for passive euthanasia to make it less burdensome. The court permitted a living will to be attested by a notary or a gazetted officer and provided for an appeal to a high court when the process is denied.
How do other countries regulate euthanasia?
Nations such as the Netherlands and Belgium permit both active and passive euthanasia for patients experiencing “unbearable suffering.”
Australia also allows both forms for mentally competent, terminally ill patients who are not expected to survive beyond about a year.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Euthanasia