"We will have to do something now": Supreme Court Moves on Passive Euthanasia Plea
The Supreme Court of India has taken a decisive step in a long-pending case regarding passive euthanasia, expressing strong concerns about the prolonged suffering of a 32-year-old man who has been in a vegetative state for the past 13 years. A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan stated on Thursday, December 11, 2025, "We will have to do something now. We can't allow him to live like this. That's for sure".
The case revolves around Harish Rana, who suffered severe head injuries in 2013 after falling from the fourth floor of his residence while a student at Punjab University. Since then, he has been bedridden and in a vegetative state, requiring constant medical care and support. His parents, particularly his father Ashok Rana, have been advocating for passive euthanasia, citing their emotional and financial exhaustion from providing round-the-clock care. This is the second time in two years that Harish's parents have approached the Supreme Court seeking permission for passive euthanasia for their son.
In response to the plea, the Supreme Court has directed the Director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, to constitute a secondary medical board to thoroughly examine Harish's condition. The court has requested a comprehensive report from the medical board by December 17, 2025, with the next hearing scheduled for December 18, 2025. This report is deemed crucial for the court to make an informed decision on the father's request to withdraw medical facilities, allowing passive euthanasia for his son.
This directive follows an earlier order from the apex court in late November 2025, which instructed the Noida District Hospital to form a primary medical board to assess Harish's condition. The Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of Ghaziabad, along with a team of medical experts, subsequently visited Harish's residence and submitted a report. The court noted that the report indicated Harish was in a "pathetic condition," suffering from severe bedsores and requiring tubes for respiration and feeding, with negligible chances of recovery. The bench also directed that the letter addressed by the medical experts to the Principal, Lala Lajpat Rai Memorial Medical College, Meerut and other documents should be shared with the Director, AIIMS.
The Supreme Court's intervention underscores the complexities and sensitivities surrounding the issue of passive euthanasia in India. Passive euthanasia, which involves the withdrawal of medical treatment with the intention of hastening death for a terminally ill patient, is permissible in India under strict guidelines. Active euthanasia, which involves actively ending a patient's life, remains illegal.
In a landmark judgment in 2018, the Supreme Court recognized the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right, allowing individuals to execute "living wills" or advance medical directives to refuse medical treatment in the event of a terminal illness or irreversible vegetative state. The court has also laid down conditions and safeguards regarding the execution of such a living will. In January 2023, the Supreme Court modified its guidelines in the Common Cause judgment, streamlining the process of preparing a valid advance medical directive.
The current case highlights the practical challenges in implementing these guidelines and the emotional toll on families caring for loved ones in persistent vegetative states. The Supreme Court's decision to seek further medical evaluation from AIIMS indicates a careful and considered approach to this sensitive matter.
Previously, in November 2024, the Supreme Court had considered a Union Health Ministry report suggesting home care for Harish, with support from the Uttar Pradesh government and regular medical visits. The court had also suggested shifting him to a Noida district hospital if home care proved unfeasible. The upcoming report from the AIIMS medical board and the subsequent hearing on December 18 will be critical in determining the future course of Harish Rana's case and may further refine the legal and ethical understanding of passive euthanasia in India.
