Euthanasia case Highlights: Supreme Court to consider withdrawing Harish Rana's life support

The Supreme Court, while reserving its judgment, said it would not use the word passive euthanasia. "We decide matters everyday but these issues are delicate. We are also mortals. Who are we to decide who lives or dies?" the court said. "Will consider withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment," Justice JB Pardiwala said. 

ASG Aishwarya Bhati said today, Harish Rana "is on his skin and bones". The arguments have now concluded. The court has reserved its judgment.

Concluding her arguments, the ASG said Harish Rana has been in an irreversible permanent vegetative state for the last 13 years. "Cause of death cannot be an act of omission," the ASG underlined, citing the 2018 court judgment. She said the cause of death should be the underlying medical condition.

Continuing her submissions, ASG Aishwarya Bhati argued that the medical board set up to decide the fate of terminally ill patients should look into the views of the family as well. However, she disagreed with the views of the amicus that there was a need to have a permanent medical board in place in the states.

The Supreme Court notes the fact that the recovery of Harish Rana was out of question. ASG Aishwarya Bhati urged the court to lay down guidelines related to the views of the caregivers to terminally ill patients. "Harish's parents have been in tears. They also have had to shift their residence so the ambulance could come in quickly in case of an emergency," the ASG said.

The ASG, representing the Centre, is now making her submissions. The ASG said this would be the first time that the guidelines laid down during the Common Cause case would be implemented. The ASG then went on to draw the differences between the cases of Aruna Shanbaug and Harish Rana. Shanbaug, a nurse in Mumbai, was sexually assaulted by a ward boy in 1973, leaving her in a vegetative state for 42 years.

Concluding her arguments, the amicus, citing the unanimous conclusion of the medical boards, prayed for the withdrawal of life support for Harish Rana. She said that the prayer was as per the decision of Harish's parents.

The amicus is now taking the court through the guidelines mandated in passive euthanasia cases. As per the rules, hospitals have to constitute two medical boards, a primary board and a secondary board with an external nominee, with doctors having at least five years' experience. If boards refuse permission, families of terminally-ill pateints can approach the High Court.

The amicus, who is assisting the court in the case, is now reading out Harish Rana's medical report. The reports of the two panels constituted by the court concluded that Harish required external support for feeding, bladder and bowel movement. The report mentioned non-progressive permanent brain damage, the amicus said. The advocate then took the court through the legal precedents from India and the UK on the differences between active and passive euthanasia.

Citing the previous verdict by the Supreme Court, the amicus said feeding tubes constitute a form of life support. She said Harish has been in the same condition for the past 13 years since the accident. "The feeding tube has to be changed every 2-3 months. He's been cared for at home but has been in the same condition," the amicus said. The ASG, appearing for the Centre, said hyperbaric oxygen therapy was also tried, but it failed. "He also developed fits and continues on the medication for that," the ASG said.

The amicus is now taking the court through the passive euthanasia guidelines laid down in 2023. In 2018, the Supreme Court, in the Common Cause vs Union of India case, recognised living wills and permitted passive euthanasia. As per the guidelines, if a patient does not have a living will, as in the case of Harish Rana, passive euthanasia can only be considered after approval from medical boards and the court.

The amicus said there would be no medical treatment during palliative care, where Harish Rana's feeding tube would be removed. "There will be no intervention. He will be given sedatives so he doesn't feel any pain. He will just be made comfortable till his death," the amicus said.

Explaining the passive euthanasia process, the lawyer says Harish Rana will be put in palliative care at a hospital. She said during the process, the 32-year-old won't be in any pain. "It will be done in a scientific way," the lawyer said.

Medical board reports say Harish Rana cannot come back to his original state, the amicus curiae assisting the court said. "It is ultimately for the court to decide as parens patriae," she said. Parens patriae, a Latin term, empowers the state to act as a guardian for citizens unable to care for themselves.

The lawyer representing Harish Rana's parents said that continuing such treatment violated the right to live with dignity. She cited previous Supreme Court remarks, where the court underlined the need to smoothen of process of dying for those in a permanent vegetative state.

The hearing has begun. The judges are hearing the submissions being made by the lawyer representing Harish Rana's parents. The lawyer says that the Harish Rana case is one of just accelerating natural death.

The Supreme Court has handled the case with much compassion. Before deciding to pass a final order, the two judges met the parents of Harish Rana and his younger brother earlier this week. The parents reportedly told the judges that they don't want Harish to suffer anymore. They further said they had done everything within their capacity during this period.

Harish Rana's parents approached the Supreme Court for a second time in November 2025. This time, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan ordered the constitution of primary and secondary medical boards, as per the guidelines laid by the top court in 2023. Both panels concluded that Harish had a negligible chance of recovery. "It is a very sad report. We cannot keep this boy in this stage," the Supreme Court had said.

However, the legal journey of Harish Rana's parents has been fraught with difficulties. For the Ranas, the practical difficulties of day-to-day medical care were getting insurmountable. In 2024, the Delhi High Court had rejected the plea of Harish's parents for passive euthanasia. The Supreme Court, then led by CJI DY Chandrachud, also declined their petition. You can read more about the case here.