Historic verdict: SC allows first-ever passive euthanasia for 32-year-old man vegetative since 2013
Two medical boards had already concluded that Harish Rana – the patient — had no chance of recovery
In a historic verdict, the Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the first-ever passive euthanasia in India to end the life of a 32-year-old man who has been in a vegetative state since 2013 after falling from a building.
A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan passed the order on a petition filed by Ashok Rana seeking permission to remove all life-sustaining treatment being given to his son Harish Rana.
The Bench, which had reserved its verdict on the contentious issue on January 15, passed the order for withdrawal of Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) to Rana in terms of its 2018 judgment in the Common Cause case (as modified in 2023) which recognised the fundamental right to die with dignity.
It took note of the fact that two medical boards constituted by the court had already concluded that Rana had no chance of recovery. “It’s a very sad report. We cannot keep this boy in this stage,” the Bench had said on December 18, 2025, after perusing a report containing Rana’s medical history filed by a secondary medical board of doctors from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) here.
This is the first case of the top court’s directions in the Common Cause case being judicially applied to end the agony of a person in a vegetative state. In 2011, the top court had turned down activist Pinki Virani’s petition seeking passive euthanasia for Aruna Shanbaug—a nurse at the KEM Hospital, Mumbai—who remained in a vegetative state at Ward No. 4 of the hospital for more than four decades after being sexually assaulted by a ward boy on November 27, 1973. She died on May 15, 2015.
“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. It is allowing nature to take its course when medicine can only delay the inevitable because survival is not always the same as living,” the Bench said.
Holding that the CANH currently being administered to Rana constituted “medical treatment”, the Bench said the continued administration of the CANH was no longer in his “best interests”.
“In light of the unanimous consensus arrived at by the parents/next of kin and the constituted medical boards, respectively, we are of the opinion that the medical treatment ought not to be prolonged any further,” the op court said.
Emphasising that “The right to die with dignity is inseparable from the right to receive quality palliative and EOL care,” the Bench said, “It is imperative to ensure that the withdrawal process is not marred by pain, agony, or suffering.”
Following the ‘best interest principle’, it ordered that “The medical treatment, including CANH, being administered to the applicant shall be withdrawn and/or withheld.”
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench chose to waive the reconsideration period of 30 days as all stakeholders were unanimous in their opinion that the medical treatment being administered to Harish be withdrawn and/or withheld.
The top court ordered the AIIMS, New Delhi, to grant admission to Rana in its Palliative Care department so that the withdrawal and/or withholding of his medical treatment, including CANH, can be given effect to.
For this purpose, the AIIMS shall provide all necessary facilities for shifting the applicant from his residence to the said Palliative Care department and it shall ensure that such withdrawal and/or withholding was carried out through a robust palliative and EOL (End of Life) care plan specifically tailored to manage symptoms without causing any discomfort to him, and ensuring that his dignity was preserved to the highest degree, it ordered.
“The High Courts of all states shall issue appropriate directions to all Judicial Magistrates of First Class (JMFC) within their jurisdiction to receive intimation from the hospital, in accordance with the guidelines as laid down in Common Cause (judgment of 2018), in the event the primary medical board and secondary medical board are unanimous in their decision to withdraw and/or withhold the medical treatment of any patient,” the Bench said, seeking compliance within a month.
It directed the Union of India in coordination with the respective Secretaries of Health & Family Welfare of all States/UTs, to ensure that the CMOs of all concerned districts across the country, forthwith prepare and maintain a panel consisting of registered medical practitioners possessing qualifications in accordance with the guidelines as laid down in Common Cause (case), for the purpose of nomination to the secondary medical board.
“The panel so prepared shall be periodically reviewed and updated by the CMOs at regular intervals not exceeding twelve months, so as to ensure availability, suitability, and continued compliance with the requirements under the guidelines as laid down in Common Cause (case). It shall be the duty of the Secretaries of Health & Family Welfare of each State/UT to make sure that such periodic review and updation at regular intervals is undertaken by the CMOs of all districts falling within their respective State/UT,” it said, posting the matter for further hearing on this aspect in August 2026.
The Bench directed the top court’s Registry to send one copy each of this judgment to all the high courts.
The top court urged the government to consider bringing in a comprehensive law on passive euthanasia noting that this would “provide clarity, coherence, and certainty in matters that are deeply practical and emotionally sensitive”.
It noted that despite the profound constitutional, ethical, and medical dimensions involved, the field continued to remain largely unregulated by law in India.
Passive euthanasia is the intentional act of letting a patient die by withholding or withdrawing life support or the treatment necessary to keep him alive.
The Supreme Court had in 2018 issued guidelines on passive euthanasia which was simplified in 2023. According to the 2023 guidelines, a primary and a secondary medical board will have to be formed for an expert opinion on the withdrawal of artificial life support for a patient in a vegetative state.
On November 26, 2025 the court asked the District Hospital, Noida, to constitute a primary board to examine Harish Rana and submit a report in two weeks, saying his health condition had gone from bad to worse. After examining the findings of the primary board, the Bench had referred the case to a secondary board of doctors at the AIIMS, New Delhi.
