The Supreme Court of India on Thursday has directed the Noida District Hospital in Sector 39 to set up a medical board to evaluate whether life-sustaining treatment can be withdrawn for a 31-year-old man who has remained in a vegetative state for more than a decade. The Court has asked the board to submit its findings within two weeks, marking a significant step in a deeply sensitive and ethically complex case.
The matter will be next heard on December 11.
A bench comprising Justices J. B. Pardiwala and K. V. Viswanathan issued the order while hearing a plea filed by the patient’s father. He has requested passive euthanasia for his son, Harish Rana, who has been bedridden for 12 years. The Court clarified that it is examining passive euthanasia, which refers to the withdrawal of artificial life support, and not active euthanasia. The judges stressed that the medical findings will guide any final decision.
The medical board will assess Harish’s current neurological status, the extent of brain damage, whether any improvement is medically possible, and whether long-term life support serves any meaningful therapeutic purpose.
A vegetative state occurs when the parts of the brain that manage basic survival functions continue to work, but the areas responsible for awareness and thinking stop functioning.
The person may open their eyes, breathe on their own, swallow, and show sleep and wake cycles, yet remain unaware of themselves or the environment.
Movements that appear purposeful are usually automatic or reflexive, not conscious actions.
Speech, meaningful interaction, or voluntary control of behavior is absent.
If this condition continues for an extended period, it is often called a persistent vegetative state and long term recovery of consciousness becomes unlikely. 1
Harish’s condition dates back to 2013, when he suffered severe head injuries after falling from the fourth floor of his paying guest accommodation while studying at Panjab University. Since the accident, he has depended on a PEG feeding tube and continuous care. His parents stated that his condition has steadily worsened despite years of medical support.
This is the second time the family has sought relief from the Supreme Court. In 2024, the Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to provide a structured home-care plan with regular visits from doctors, physiotherapists, nurses, and local health workers. The Court also noted that if home care proved impractical, Harish should be moved to the Noida District Hospital. Despite these measures, the family has informed the Court that Harish’s suffering has only increased.
The petition relies on the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment in the Common Cause case, which recognised the legality of passive euthanasia under strict safeguards. The ruling also introduced the concept of living wills and established a multi-layered medical review process.
In 2023, the Court refined these guidelines to make them easier to implement. According to the revised process, a primary medical board must first examine the patient. If the board finds that withdrawal of life support is appropriate, a secondary, independent board must review the case before any final decision is made. The Court’s oversight remains essential in all such cases.
References:
1. MSD Manuals. “Vegetative State.” MSD Manual Consumer Version. Accessed November 27, 2025. https://www.msdmanuals.com/home/brain-spinal-cord-and-nerve-disorders/coma-and-impaired-consciousness/vegetative-state.
2. Anusree, K. R., Gopalan, K. R., and G. Aswathy Prakash. “Exploring Euthanasia: A Comparative Legal Analysis of India’s Constitutional Approach and Global Practices.” Journal of Pioneering Medical Sciences 14, no. 9 (2025): 132–39. https://jpmsonline.com/article/exploring-euthanasia-a-comparative-legal-analysis-of-india-s-constitutional-approach-and-global-practices-886/
(Rh/ARC/MSM)
