The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its judgement on a plea seeking permission for passive euthanasia for Harish Rana, a man who has been in a permanent vegetative state for more than 13 years following a severe traumatic brain injury.
A bench of justice JB Pardiwala and justice KV Viswanathan heard detailed submissions from the petitioner and the Union government in a case that once again raises complex ethical, legal and constitutional questions on end-of-life decisions and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Rashmi Nandakumar traced Mr Rana’s condition to a fall from the fourth floor of an apartment building in Chandigarh when he was in his late-teens. She told the Court that the accident caused irreversible brain damage, leaving him in an incurable vegetative state, completely dependent on clinically assisted nutrition and hydration for survival.
Ms Nandakumar placed on record medical opinions stating that Mr Rana suffers from non-progressive and irreversible brain damage following a severe traumatic brain injury with diffuse axonal injury. As per the assessment of the medical board, he fulfils all diagnostic criteria of a permanent vegetative state and has remained in that condition continuously for the past 13 years.
She argued that continued feeding and hydration through medical intervention amounts to mechanical life support and falls squarely within the ambit of life-sustaining treatment. Passive euthanasia, she explained, involves withholding or withdrawing such treatment that artificially prolongs life, including removing a patient from life support systems.
Representing the Union government, additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati submitted that the government is assisting the Court as directed. She informed the bench that the government’s research showed that the Supreme Court’s landmark guidelines on passive euthanasia laid down in Common Cause versus Union of India had seen little effective implementation on the ground.
Referring to Mr Rana’s condition, Ms Bhati said he is in a state of complete inertness, with no meaningful neurological response. She told the Court that his eyes did not track movement, he did not respond to fear stimuli or objects brought close to his eyes and there had been no improvement over the years, indicating a profound and irreversible loss of cognitive and sensory function.
After hearing both sides, the bench recorded that detailed written submissions and relevant case law had been placed on record by the petitioner as well as the government.
While thanking counsel for their assistance, justice Pardiwala made a poignant observation on the gravity of the issue, remarking, “These are very delicate issues,” and noting that judges, being mortals themselves, often struggle with the moral weight of deciding questions concerning another person’s life.
The case has been before the Court for several months. On 18 December 2025, the bench had expressed its desire to personally meet the parents of the now 31-year-old man, who has remained in a comatose state for over 13 years. After examining a medical report from a secondary medical board constituted at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), the Court had described the findings as 'sad' and observed, “We cannot keep this boy in this stage.”
Earlier, the Court had directed AIIMS, New Delhi, to set up a secondary medical board to assess whether life-sustaining treatment could be withdrawn, acting on expert reports that described Mr Rana’s chances of recovery as negligible.
Mr Rana remains dependent on a tracheostomy tube for breathing and a gastrostomy tube for nutrition. Following the Court’s directions, an in-home medical evaluation was carried out by the chief medical officer of Ghaziabad along with four specialists, including a neurologist, neurosurgeon, plastic surgeon and anaesthesiologist.
Their report presented a grim clinical picture, noting that Mr Rana was emaciated, suffering from extensive contractures and bed sores, showing sluggish pupillary response and entirely dependent for all bodily functions, with only basic brainstem activity preserved. The doctors concluded that the chances of recovery from his current state were negligible.
The reserved judgement is expected to have significant implications for the law on passive euthanasia and the practical application of existing Supreme Court guidelines on withdrawal of life support in India.
Chaitanya Patil’s 490Km, NH66 Audit Exposes Decades of Deadly Neglect
Sucheta Dalal,
16 January 2026
As the financial capital of Mumbai prepares for its upcoming municipal elections, the political discourse in Maharashtra is increasingly defined by a dual narrative. On the one hand, the ruling coalition is promoting a set of modern...
X Disables Grok’s Sexualised Image Generation after Global Backlash, Probes and Govt Pressure
Moneylife Digital Team
15 January 2026
Facing mounting global backlash, regulatory scrutiny and government pressure, Elon Musk-led social media platform X has disabled key image generation features of its AI chatbot Grok, following widespread misuse of the tool to create...
Who Paid for Electoral Bonds Printed after Supreme Court Verdict? RTIs Flag Unanswered Questions
Moneylife Digital Team
15 January 2026
A fresh set of replies received under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by transparency campaigner commodore (Cmde) Lokesh Batra (retd) has raised new questions over who ultimately bore the cost of printing high-value electoral bonds...
Supreme Court Warns States of Heavy Compensation for Dog-bite Cases, Questions Dog-feeders
Moneylife Digital Team
13 January 2026
The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday issued a stern warning to state governments over the rising number of stray dog attacks, signalling that it may direct them to pay 'heavy compensation' in cases involving dog bites, deaths or serious...
