In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday (March 11) allowed the withdrawal of life support for a 32-year-old man who has remained in an irreversible vegetative state for 13 years, marking the first judicial application of the passive euthanasia guidelines laid down in the Common Cause v. Union of India ruling.
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan granted permission for the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment to Harish Rana after considering a plea filed by his father. The man suffered a severe brain injury after falling from the fourth floor of his paying guest accommodation and has since been in a persistent vegetative state with complete quadriplegia.
The Court observed that Rana’s condition had shown no improvement over the past 13 years. He was surviving solely through clinically administered nutrition delivered via surgically inserted PEG tubes. The bench held that such nutrition constitutes medical treatment and may be withdrawn if medical boards determine it is not in the patient’s best interest.
Both the Primary Medical Board and the Secondary Medical Board concluded that continuing the treatment would only prolong biological survival without any therapeutic benefit. The Court noted that the patient’s parents and the medical experts were in agreement that the nutrition support should be discontinued.
While stating that court intervention is generally unnecessary once both medical boards approve withdrawal of life support, the bench considered the matter since it was the first case applying the guidelines from the 2018 judgment and its 2023 modification.
The Court directed that all life-sustaining treatment, including clinically administered nutrition, be withdrawn and waived the usual 30-day reconsideration period. It also instructed the All India Institute of Medical Sciences to admit the patient to its palliative care centre and facilitate his transfer so the withdrawal process can be carried out with dignity.
Additionally, the Court asked High Courts across the country to instruct Judicial Magistrates to receive hospital intimations in cases where medical boards unanimously decide to withdraw life support under the established guidelines. It also directed the Union government to ensure that district Chief Medical Officers maintain panels of registered medical practitioners for appointment to secondary medical boards.
The bench further recommended that the Union government enact comprehensive legislation governing passive euthanasia.
Justice Pardiwala, who authored the main judgment, praised the patient’s parents for their unwavering care, noting that they had remained by their son’s side throughout the ordeal. Justice Viswanathan delivered a concurring opinion.
The case had earlier been taken to the Delhi High Court in 2024, where the plea for passive euthanasia was rejected on the ground that the patient was not terminally ill. The matter later reached the Supreme Court, which initially declined to entertain it but directed the Government of Uttar Pradesh to bear the treatment expenses. After the patient’s condition worsened, a fresh application was filed in 2025, leading to the constitution of medical boards that ultimately supported the withdrawal of life support.