Dying With Dignity: India's Evolving End-Of-Life Jurisprudence The Supreme Court's recent proceedings in Harish Rana v Union of India have brought to the forefront a constitutional question at the intersection of medicine and law. Harish Rana suffered a catastrophic brain injury in 2013, leaving him in a persistent vegetative state. For over a decade, his survival depended on medical interventions, including clinically assisted nutrition and hydration through a feeding tube. His parents approached the Supreme Court seeking legal clarity on whether such interventions should be considered medical treatment rather than basic care. The Court clarified that artificial nutrition and hydration can be regarded as medical treatment, which may be evaluated under the principle of the patient's best interests. The judgment also refined procedural safeguards for end-of-life decisions, addressing the constitution of medical boards, procedures for home care, and the need to reduce doctors' hesitation in making ethically justified decisions. This ruling does not merely resolve an individual case but reflects the Court's ongoing effort to develop a constitutional framework for dignity at the end of life. Indian constitutional law has approached the issue of end-of-life decisions cautiously over several decades. The debate first emerged in P. Rathinam v Union of India (1994), where the Supreme Court briefly held that criminalizing attempted suicide violated constitutional liberty. This reasoning was reconsidered in Gian Kaur v State of Punjab (1996), where a Constitution Bench rejected the idea of a fundamental right to die.#supreme_court #harish_rana #union_of_india #constitutional_law #end_of_life
