SRINAGAR: The Supreme Court on Wednesday permitted the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for Harish Rana, a 31-year-old man who has remained in a permanent vegetative state since suffering a severe brain injury in 2013 after falling from the fourth floor of a building in Chandigarh.
A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan allowed Rana’s parents’ plea for passive euthanasia, observing that his medical condition had shown no improvement for over a decade and that he remained completely dependent on others for all basic activities.
According to the court, Rana experiences sleep–wake cycles but has no meaningful interaction and survives on clinically assisted nutrition and hydration administered through a PEG tube.
“In line with our considered view, it would be permissible for the medical board to exercise its clinical judgment regarding the withdrawal of treatment,” the Bench said, directing that the process be carried out in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the landmark judgment in Common Cause v. Union of India.
The ruling is significant as it marks the first known instance where the Supreme Court has applied the principles laid down in the 2018 judgment in an individual case to permit passive euthanasia.
The court directed that Rana be admitted to the palliative care centre at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), where the withdrawal of clinically administered nutrition will be carried out in a dignified manner.
Two medical boards constituted to examine Rana’s condition had concluded that there was no possibility of recovery. The court said that once the primary and secondary boards had certified withdrawal of life support, there was ordinarily no need for judicial intervention, but the matter was placed before it, given the significance of the issue.
Rana was a BTech student when he suffered the accident in August 2013 while staying at a paying guest accommodation in Chandigarh. The fall caused a severe traumatic brain injury, leaving him bedridden with a tracheostomy tube for respiration and a feeding tube.
His parents had earlier approached the Delhi High Court seeking permission to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. The High Court declined relief, holding that Rana was not on mechanical life support and was not terminally ill.
The family later moved to the Supreme Court, which directed the constitution of medical boards to assess his condition.
While permitting withdrawal of life support, the court said the process must be carried out with dignity and compassion. It also directed authorities to ensure that medical boards across the country follow the procedure laid down in the 2018 judgment, under which decisions on passive euthanasia require evaluation by multiple panels of doctors.
Passive euthanasia refers to allowing a patient to die by withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment when there is no reasonable hope of recovery. The Supreme Court in 2018 held that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to die with dignity in certain circumstances involving terminal illness or a persistent vegetative state.
