Key Points
March 11, 2026: Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia for 31 year old Harish Rana.
Rana has been in a vegetative state since a 2013 fall in Ghaziabad.
Petition filed by parents Ravinder Rana and Kusum Rana.
Two medical boards confirmed no chance of recovery.
Court permitted withdrawal of Ryles tube feeding and life support.
Process to occur under medical supervision with palliative care.
Bench: Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan.
Ruling reinforces right to die with dignity under Article 21.
In a landmark ruling on March 11, 2026, the Supreme Court of India allowed the withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment for 31-year-old Harish Rana, who has remained in a permanent vegetative state for more than 13 years. The judgment marks the first time the Supreme Court has directly permitted passive euthanasia in an individual case, reinforcing the constitutional principle of the right to die with dignity.
A bench comprising Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan passed the order after reviewing medical reports and hearing a plea filed by Rana’s parents. The court permitted the withdrawal of artificial life support after medical experts confirmed that his condition was irreversible and that there was no realistic possibility of recovery.
Harish Rana, a resident of Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh, suffered severe head injuries in 2013 after falling from the fourth floor of a building. The accident caused extensive brain damage and left him in a permanent vegetative state.
Since then, Rana has been completely dependent on life-sustaining medical care, including artificial nutrition through a Ryles tube. For more than a decade, he showed no signs of neurological recovery.
His parents, Ravinder Rana and Kusum Rana, have been caring for him since the accident. After years of treatment without improvement, they approached the Supreme Court seeking permission to withdraw life support, arguing that continuing medical intervention served no meaningful therapeutic purpose.
Before issuing its ruling, the Supreme Court relied on evaluations conducted by two separate medical boards, which examined Rana and reviewed his medical records.
The experts concluded that Rana remained in a permanent vegetative state with no possibility of meaningful recovery. Based on these findings, the court observed that continuing artificial life support would only prolong a biological existence without any prospect of improvement.
The bench noted that in such circumstances, allowing withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment aligns with the constitutional protection of dignity under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration provided through the Ryles tube, effectively permitting passive euthanasia.
The court directed that the process be conducted under strict medical supervision, ensuring that Rana receives appropriate palliative care and sedation to keep him comfortable.
Reports indicated that the procedure would be carried out under the supervision of doctors at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) or another designated medical facility, where medical professionals will oversee the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment.
Passive euthanasia, which involves withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment in patients with no chance of recovery, was legally recognized by the Supreme Court in the 2018 Common Cause vs Union of India judgment. That decision also recognized the validity of living wills and advance directives.
(Rh/ARC/MSM)
