The Supreme Court on Wednesday (March 11, 2026) is scheduled to pronounce judgment in a plea made by the family of Harish Rana, a 31-year-old man, to withdraw life-sustaining treatment to him.
The judgment by a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan may decisively draw the boundaries for when to allow natural death to take over. The judgment may also be the first time the court practically implements guidelines for withdrawal of life support.
The judgment comes after the Bench had conducted long, measured, and multi-tiered consultations with Mr. Rana’s family, medical boards and counsel appearing for both the family members and the Centre. A team led by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati had visited the Rana residence and submitted an eyewitness report to the Supreme Court.
The Bench had personally met Mr. Rana’s parents and siblings, who said they did not want him to suffer anymore.
The court had also recorded the submission made by Ms. Bhati that primary and secondary boards of doctors who visited Mr. Rana were also of the opinion that medical treatment should be discontinued and “nature should be allowed to take its own course”.
Mr. Rana had sustained severe head injuries and 100% quadriplegic disability after sustaining a fall from the fourth floor of his paying guest accommodation as a Panjab University student in 2013. He has been bed-ridden for over 13 years now.
“The doctors are of the opinion that Harish would remain in this permanent vegetative state (PVS) for years to come… He would never be able to recover and live a normal life,” the apex court had recounted in the January 15 order.
Don’t use ‘passive euthanasia’ in judgment: Family lawyer
The hearings in the case had seen the Rana family lawyer, advocate Rashmi Nandakumar, urge the court not to use the terminology ‘passive euthanasia’ and instead use ‘withdrawing/withholding life-sustaining treatment’ in its judgment. Justice Pardiwala had said the thought was in the minds of the judges from the very first day.
The hearings had delved into the emotional weight of decisions in such cases with Justice Viswanathan, at one point, asking what would happen if a distressed family changed their mind to not go ahead in conflict with the medical opinion. Justice Pardiwala had at the time pointed out that the medical board may not come into the picture until and unless the family’s consent to withdrawing life support was made in writing.
The hearing had highlighted the importance of the family taking a “consistent and well-considered” decision. Ms. Nandakumar had also submitted that hospitals ought to nominate doctors who would be part of medical boards assigned to undertake the medical examinations in cases in which family members have come forward with a wish to withdraw life support.
Active euthanasia illegal in India
In 2018, a Constitution Bench of the apex court had upheld passive euthanasia and the right to give advance medical directives or ‘Living Wills’ to smooth the dying process as part of the fundamental right to live with dignity. The court had ruled that the fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution included the “right to die with dignity”.
However, active euthanasia is illegal in India due to apprehensions of misuse, unlike Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying programme (MAiD). Former Canadian diplomat David Malone had reportedly chosen the option in November last year after being diagnosed with early Alzheimer’s.
One of the first indications of judicial application of mind to passive euthanasia could be found in the 1996 Gian Kaur verdict. Though the Supreme Court in that case had dealt with the legality of penalising an attempt to die by suicide, it gave an “indication” that passive euthanasia would only “accelerate the process of dying” in the case of terminally-ill persons or patients in persistent vegetative state.
In 2011, the apex court was met with the tragic case of the bedridden former Mumbai nurse Aruna Shanbaug and admitted to initially “feeling like a ship in uncharted sea”. It refused euthanasia for Shanbaug, who had been bedridden for over four decades due to injuries sustained in a sexual assault on her. However, the apex court laid down procedural guidelines for passive euthanasia in its judgment. Shanbaug died four years later, in May 2015. The staff at Mumbai’s KEM Hospital had taken care of her till her natural death.
‘Living Will’
In 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench in the Common Cause case decided to lend more clarity by upholding the legality of passive euthanasia and concept of ‘Living Will’ – an advance written directive to physicians for end-of-life medical care.
The court observed that dignity was lost if a person was allowed or forced to undergo pain and suffering because of “unwarranted medical support” despite being in a persistent vegetative state.
The judgment legalised passive euthanasia despite the government’s arguments that it was drafting a legislation called ‘The Management of Patients With Terminal Illness – Withdrawal of Medical Life Support Bill’, which was drawn up in line with the recommendations of the Law Commission of India that life support can be withdrawn for patients in persistent vegetative state (PVS) or suffering an irreversible medical condition.
“The right of a dying person to die with dignity when life is ebbing out, and in the case of a terminally ill patient or a person in permanent vegetative state, where there is no hope of recovery, accelerating the process of death for reducing the period of suffering constitutes a right to live with dignity,” Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra (now retired) had observed in the lead opinion.
In his separate opinion, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (now retired) had observed that “to deprive a person dignity at the end of life is to deprive him of a meaningful existence”.
The court had defined “meaningful existence” to include a person’s right to self-determination and autonomy to decide his or her medical treatment. Justice Ashok Bhushan (retired) agreed that the right to a dignified life includes a “dignified procedure of death”. Justice A.K. Sikri (retired), in a separate opinion, said that though religion, morality, philosophy, law and society have conflicting opinions about whether the right to life included the right to die, they all agreed that a person should die with dignity.
Published – March 11, 2026 09:34 am IST
