On his final day as Chief Justice, DY Chandrachud granted relief to parents seeking euthanasia for their son, following a report from the Uttar Pradesh government. The government stated that it would cover all medical expenses for the man, which influenced the decision. This support provided a lifeline for the family and postponed further action on their euthanasia request.
New Delhi: The parents of 30-year-old Harish Rana, who has been in a vegetative state for over 13 years due to a severe head injury, have finally received much-needed relief following the intervention of former Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud.
Faced with the overwhelming financial strain of their son’s ongoing medical care, the parents petitioned the Supreme Court for passive euthanasia, seeking the right to withdraw his life-support measures. Passive euthanasia refers to the practice of withholding artificial life support to allow for a natural death, without any active measures taken.
On his final working day, D.Y. Chandrachud stepped in and instructed the Uttar Pradesh government to explore options for covering Rana’s medical expenses, as his parents were unable to provide the necessary care for him.
Ashok Rana, 62, and Nirmala Devi, 55, had struggled financially to care for their son, who suffered a severe head injury and became quadriplegic after falling from a fourth-floor window in Mohali. During his last hearing, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud reviewed a report from the Centre detailing comprehensive care measures, which the Uttar Pradesh government agreed to provide.
These include home visits from a physiotherapist and dietician, an on-call medical officer, nursing support, and essential medications at no cost. Should home care prove inadequate, arrangements will be made to transfer the son to the district hospital in Noida for further support.
Advocate Manish, representing the parents, informed the court that the family accepted this care plan and would withdraw their plea for passive euthanasia.
Previously, the Delhi High Court denied active euthanasia, stating that Rana, although in a vegetative state, “was not dependent on mechanical life support” and could survive without external devices.
Read Also: Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s Tenure: A Humane Legacy
Justice Subramonium Prasad referenced the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling on euthanasia, which allows passive euthanasia under specific conditions but maintains a ban on active euthanasia.
The High Court had emphasized,
“No one, including a physician, is permitted to cause the death of another person by administering any lethal drug, even if the objective is to relieve pain and suffering.”
The Supreme Court’s landmark 2018 judgment clarified that passive euthanasia applies when families choose to withdraw life-support measures without direct intervention, allowing individuals the right to refuse life-saving treatment.