India’s Supreme Court has reserved its judgment in the Harish Rana case, addressing life support withdrawal for patients in irreversible vegetative states. The decision could set a landmark precedent for passive euthanasia in the country.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has reserved its judgment in the high-profile passive euthanasia case of Harish Rana, who has remained in a permanent vegetative state since a 2013 accident. This case is poised to be India’s first implementation of passive euthanasia under legal guidelines, following the landmark Common Cause judgment that legalized withdrawal of life support under strict conditions.
Harish Rana, now in his late 30s, has been dependent on life-support tubes for survival since a tragic accident in 2013. His parents approached the Supreme Court seeking withdrawal of life support, citing his irreversible condition and the prolonged suffering endured over the last 13 years.
During the hearing, the bench inquired,
“One question for the purpose for removal of tubes, if tubes remove, he will be taken home?”
The counsel for Harish’s parents clarified,
“No, after proper taking care.”
Medical reports presented to the court highlighted that Harish requires external support for feeding, bladder, and bowel movements, and suffers from non-progressive permanent brain damage.
Harish Rana’s lawyer emphasized that the case was about “just accelerating natural death”, and argued that continuing life support violated “the right to live with dignity.” The counsel cited Indian and UK legal precedents distinguishing active and passive euthanasia.
They further highlighted procedural lapses, stating:
As per the rules, hospitals have to constitute two medical boards—a primary board and a secondary board with an external nominee, with doctors having at least five years’ experience. In this case, there was non-constitution of the secondary board, which prompted our approach to the Court.”
The lawyer concluded
“Parents pray for withdrawal of life support to Harish Rana.”
The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) representing the Centre supported the procedural implementation of guidelines laid down in the Common Cause case. The ASG argued that medical boards deciding the fate of terminally ill patients should consider both the family’s views and medical opinions, but opposed the need for a permanent state-level medical board.
“Harish Rana has been in an irreversible permanent vegetative state for the last 13 years. The cause of death should be the underlying medical condition, not an act of omission,”
the ASG submitted.
The hearing also drew comparisons with the Shanbaug case (1973), in which a nurse in Mumbai remained in a vegetative state for 42 years following a sexual assault. This historic case laid the foundation for India’s legal recognition of passive euthanasia.
After hearing all arguments, the bench signaled careful deliberation on the ethical, medical, and legal considerations surrounding withdrawal of life support, and remarked,
“No more passive euthanasia”.
Following the conclusion of arguments, the judgment has been reserved.
For the past 13 years, 32-year-old Delhi resident Harish Rana has been in a permanent vegetative state following a fall from a fourth-floor balcony in August 2013 that caused severe brain damage and total disability. Dependent on tubes for breathing and nutrition, Harish has shown no signs of recovery.
What Happened to Harish Rana?
Harish Rana’s ordeal began on August 20, 2013, when the civil engineering student fell from the fourth floor of his PG accommodation at Chandigarh University. He suffered severe head injuries, leading to 100% disability, and has remained in a permanent vegetative state ever since. Unable to move or respond, Harish depends entirely on medical support.
Over the years, his parents exhausted their savings, sold their home in Delhi’s Mahavir Enclave, and relocated to Ghaziabad, dedicating their lives to his care amid mounting emotional and financial strain.
The Legal Battle: From High Court to Supreme Court
Despite the legal recognition of passive euthanasia, Harish Rana’s parents faced repeated setbacks. In July 2024, the Delhi High Court rejected their plea, holding that Harish was not on a mechanical ventilator and could sustain life through feeding and breathing tubes, and that withdrawal of nutrition would amount to active euthanasia.
A subsequent plea before the Supreme Court in November 2024 was also declined, with then CJI DY Chandrachud observing that Harish was not completely dependent on life-support machines. In December 2025, the parents again approached the Supreme Court, citing deterioration in Harish’s condition.
Following 2023 guidelines, the Court constituted primary and secondary medical boards, both of which found no chance of recovery. Terming the report “very sad,” Justice JB Pardiwala remarked that Harish could not be kept in such a condition, and the Court reserved its final order for January 15.
Passive Euthanasia in India
Euthanasia refers to the intentional ending of life to relieve suffering from an incurable condition. In India, it is classified into two types:
- Active Euthanasia: Causing death through drugs or injections (illegal in India)
- Passive Euthanasia: Withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment (legal under strict guidelines)
The legal recognition of passive euthanasia began with the Aruna Shanbaug case (2011). Aruna, a Mumbai nurse, remained in a vegetative state for 42 years following a sexual assault before passing away in 2015.
In 2018, the Supreme Court, in Common Cause vs Union of India, ruled that the right to die with dignity is an intrinsic part of Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution.
Case Title:
Harish Rana v. Union of India & Ors.
Miscellaneous Application No. 2238/2025
READ LIVE COVERAGE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Passive Euthanasia