The Right To Die, With Dignity Harish Rana, a 20-year-old engineering student, faced an unimaginable fate in 2013 when he fell from the fourth floor of his PG accommodation, sustaining critical injuries that left him in a permanent vegetative state. Confined to a bed, he was sustained by life-support systems, with his parents and medical teams tending to him for 13 years. Despite their unwavering care, there was no improvement in his condition. Faced with the unbearable burden of prolonged suffering, Harish’s parents sought legal intervention, petitioning the Supreme Court to withdraw life support and allow nature to take its course. This case became a landmark moment in India’s constitutional discourse on the right to life with dignity under Article 21. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and liberty, has evolved over time. In the 1996 case Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, the Court ruled that while life under Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity, it does not extend to the right to die. However, this stance was challenged in 2011 with the case of Aruna Shanbaug, a woman left in a permanent vegetative state after a brutal sexual assault. Her friend, Pinki Virani, petitioned the Court to withdraw her life support, leading to the landmark decision in Aruna R. Shanbaug v. Union of India. Though the Court rejected Virani’s plea, it acknowledged the need for legal clarity on passive euthanasia—allowing the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for terminally ill patients. The ruling established guidelines to address the absence of legislative frameworks, emphasizing the importance of medical and legal safeguards. Further developments came in 2018 with the Common Cause v. Union of India case, which marked a significant shift in the Court’s approach.#supreme_court #harish_rana #common_cause #article_21 #pinki_virani
The Jurisprudence Of Dignity: Evolution Of Passive Euthanasia In India The Supreme Court of India’s landmark judgment in Harish Rana v. Union of India & Ors. (2026) marked a pivotal shift in the legal and ethical framework surrounding end-of-life care. By authorizing the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for a 32-year-old man in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) for over 12 years, the Court transformed passive euthanasia from a theoretical constitutional right into a practical legal reality. This decision redefined the boundaries of patient autonomy and the state’s role in medical decision-making. The term “euthanasia” originates from the Greek words “eu” (good) and “thanatos” (death), signifying a painless and peaceful death. It encompasses both active and passive methods, with the latter involving the withdrawal of life-sustaining interventions rather than direct intervention. Historically, the concept has evolved through medical and legal discourse, with early references dating back to the 17th century. The House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics in England later formalized the definition, describing euthanasia as a deliberate act to end a life to relieve intractable suffering. While active euthanasia remains illegal in most jurisdictions, passive euthanasia—such as discontinuing ventilators or feeding tubes—is permitted in many countries. This distinction reflects a broader legal consensus that terminally ill patients possess a common law right to refuse treatment, allowing nature to take its course. Courts in jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, and Australia have consistently upheld principles that prioritize patient autonomy, even as they impose strict procedural safeguards.#aruna_shanbaug #harish_rana #supreme_court_of_india #common_cause #right_to_die_with_dignity
Supreme Court Approves First Passive Euthanasia Case, Permits Life Support Withdrawal for Man in Vegetative State The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday issued its first-ever ruling permitting passive euthanasia, aligning with its 2018 Common Cause judgment, which was later modified in 2023. The court authorized the withdrawal of life support for a 32-year-old man, Harish Rana, who has been in an irreversible permanent vegetative state for 13 years following a fall from a building. The decision was made on a petition filed by his father, seeking to discontinue all life-sustaining treatments. The bench, comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, acknowledged the medical reports confirming Harish’s condition. The court noted that his brain injury, sustained during the accident, left him in a Persistent Vegetative State (PSV) with complete quadraplegia. Despite ongoing medical interventions, including Clinically Administered Nutrition (CAN) delivered via surgically implanted PEG tubes, his condition has not improved over the past decade. The court emphasized that continued treatment merely extended his biological existence without therapeutic benefit. The ruling stated that the withdrawal of CAN, a medical treatment, could be decided by the Primary and Secondary Medical Boards. The court highlighted that these boards, along with the patient’s parents, had concluded that continuing life support was not in Harish’s best interest. While the court acknowledged that the medical boards’ decision should be sufficient, it intervened in this case as a precedent. The court directed that life support must be withdrawn in a dignified manner, ensuring the patient’s comfort and respect for his autonomy.#harish_rana #supreme_court_of_india #justice_jb_pardiwala #justice_kv_viswanathan #common_cause
