RIGHT TO DIE WITH DIGNITY: HOW THE HARISH RANA JUDGMENT RESHAPED END-OF-LIFE LAW IN INDIA

In the landmark judgment of Harish Rana v. Union of India & Ors. (2026), the Supreme Court of India reshaped the legal and ethical framework by permitting withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for a 32-year-old man in a permanent vegetative state for over twelve years, the Court transformed passive euthanasia from theory into practical reality.

- KAMLESH SINGH

The term "euthanasia" originates from the Greek words "eu" (good) and "thanatos" (death), literally meaning a "good death." It is commonly associated with the idea of mercy killing and refers to the intentional hastening of the death of a terminally ill patient through active or passive means to relieve unbearable pain or suffering. The concept was articulated in the seventeenth century by Francis Bacon, who used the term to describe an easy, painless, and peaceful death, emphasizing that physicians have a responsibility to alleviate the suffering of patients. Later, the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics defined euthanasia as a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending life to relieve intractable suffering.

While active euthanasia is where a physician directly administers a lethal substance remains legal only in a limited number of jurisdictions, passive euthanasia, which involves withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment, is permitted in several countries under specific safeguards. Modern legal thought increasingly recognizes that a terminally ill individual has the right to refuse medical treatment and allow the natural process of death. Courts across multiple jurisdictions have affirmed this principle including decisions such as Airedale NHS Trust v Bland, Cruzan v Director, Missouri Department of Health, and Rodriguez v Attorney General of Canada, reflecting an emerging global consensus on patient autonomy in end-of-life decisions.