The Supreme Court of India has delivered a historic ruling. The court allowed doctors to remove life support for Harish Rana, a 31-year-old man who has remained in a vegetative state for more than ten years.
This decision marks the first court-approved case of passive euthanasia in the country.
What the Ruling Means
Passive euthanasia means withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment. India made this practice legal in 2018 under strict guidelines.
However, active euthanasia — where someone intentionally helps another person end their life — remains illegal in India.
Accident That Changed Everything
Harish Rana suffered severe head injuries in 2013 after falling from a fourth-floor balcony. At that time, he was studying engineering at Punjab University.
Since the accident, Rana has remained in a coma-like condition. He cannot speak, see, hear, or recognise people, according to his family.
Doctors have kept him alive with medical support, including a tracheostomy tube for breathing and a feeding tube.
Family’s Long Legal Battle
Rana’s parents spent years asking courts to allow the withdrawal of his life support. They told local media they had exhausted their savings while caring for their son. They also worried about what would happen to him after their deaths.
In 2024, the family approached the Delhi High Court, but the court rejected their request. Judges said Rana was not fully dependent on machines to survive.
The family later appealed to the Supreme Court again in 2025, arguing that his condition had worsened.
Medical Evaluation
The Supreme Court ordered two medical boards to review Rana’s health. Both panels concluded that he had permanent brain damage and almost no chance of recovery.
Doctors said he shows sleep and wake cycles but no meaningful interaction. They also noted severe complications, including bed sores and total dependence on caregivers.
Living Wills and Ethical Debate
The case reignited debate about “living wills” in India. A living will allows adults to record their medical preferences if they later develop a terminal illness.
For example, people can specify whether they want life-support machines or only pain relief treatment.
Rana had not prepared a living will before his accident. Because of this, the court had to rely on medical assessments and family requests.
Court’s Final Decision
The Supreme Court ruled that doctors can now use their clinical judgement to withdraw treatment. The order allows medical boards to proceed according to the law governing passive euthanasia.
Rana’s father, Ashok Rana, thanked the court for what he called a humanitarian decision. He said the choice was difficult but necessary for his son’s dignity.
