SC allows passive euthanasia for 32-yr-old in pivotal ruling

The Supreme Court on Wednesday permitted the withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment for a 32-year-old man who has remained in a permanent vegetative state for more than a decade, invoking the timeless Shakespearean dilemma of "to be or not to be" in India's first judicially sanctioned case of passive euthanasia.

- Utkarsh Anand

A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan, in separate but concurring judgments running into 338 pages, allowed the plea filed by the parents of Harish Rana, directing that clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) being administered to him be withdrawn under a structured palliative care plan at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Delhi.

Holding that life-sustaining medical treatment cannot be prolonged when it no longer serves the patient's best interests or dignity, the bench emphasised that the decision was not about choosing death but about refusing to artificially prolong life where medical treatment had ceased to serve any therapeutic purpose.

"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...because survival is not always the same as living," said the bench.

Rana, a former engineering student in Chandigarh and currently a resident of Ghaziabad, suffered catastrophic head injuries in 2013 after falling from the fourth floor of his paying guest accommodation. Since then, he has remained completely unresponsive and bedridden, dependent on feeding tubes for nutrition and hydration.

Although he is not on mechanical ventilation, he requires round-theclock care and has shown no neurological improvement for more than 10 years.

After years of treatment and therapy, his parents approached the Supreme Court seeking permission to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, contending that continued medical intervention served no therapeutic purpose and merely prolonged suffering.