The Supreme Court of India has reserved its verdict on a plea concerning 31-year-old Harish Rana, who has been in a permanent vegetative state since a 2013 accident. The court heard arguments from the government and family members regarding the withdrawal of life support for Rana. The case has drawn comparisons to that of Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse who remained in a vegetative state for 42 years after a sexual assault.

Harish Rana sustained a severe traumatic brain injury in August 2013 after falling from the fourth floor of his accommodation while studying civil engineering in Chandigarh. Since then, he has been in a permanent vegetative state with 100% disability, relying on tubes for breathing and nutrition.

Rana's parents approached the Supreme Court seeking permission to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, a form of passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia involves allowing death by withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. Advocate Rashmi Nandakumar, representing Rana's family, argued that his condition is irreversible and incurable and that continued treatment only sustains biological survival.

The Supreme Court had previously recognized passive euthanasia in 2011 in the Aruna Shanbaug case. Aruna Shanbaug was a nurse who was sexually assaulted in 1973 and remained in a vegetative state for 42 years.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati, assisting the court, stated that the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the Common Cause case regarding passive euthanasia have remained largely unimplemented. Bhati also informed the Court of Rana's deteriorated condition, noting his unresponsiveness and significant decline.

The court, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan, acknowledged the sensitivity of the matter. The bench stated that these are delicate issues, and mortals cannot decide someone's life. The court also observed that Harish Rana was not on mechanical life support and was able to sustain himself without external aid. The Delhi High Court had previously rejected the parent's plea for passive euthanasia in July 2024, stating that Harish was able to sustain himself without external aid. The High Court clarified that Harish was dependent on a tracheostomy tube for breathing and a gastrostomy tube for nutrition and was not being kept alive by a mechanical ventilator. The High Court had also stated that removing the feeding tube would cause Harish to starve to death and amount to active euthanasia.

The Supreme Court has consistently maintained that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution does not include a general right to die. However, it has recognized the right to live with dignity, which extends to the process of dying when life is ebbing out.

The court will now decide whether to allow the withdrawal of life support, potentially marking the first court-approved case of passive euthanasia in India since its legalization in 2018. The decision hinges on balancing the right to life with dignity and the complexities surrounding end-of-life care.