Former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud on Wednesday praised the Supreme Court’s decision allowing passive euthanasia for a 31-year-old man who has been in a coma for more than 12 years, calling it a sensitive and compassionate use of constitutional power.

The court permitted the withdrawal of artificial life support for Harish Rana after observing that there was virtually no chance of his recovery. Rana, a student of Panjab University, suffered severe head injuries in 2013 after falling from the fourth floor of his paying guest accommodation. Since then, he has remained in a coma.

Passive euthanasia refers to allowing a patient to die by withdrawing or withholding medical treatment or life-support systems that keep them alive.

Speaking to NDTV in an off-camera but on-record interaction, Chandrachud said the decision reflects a humane application of constitutional values. According to him, the ruling strengthens the idea of human dignity and ensures complete justice in an extremely difficult situation.

Chandrachud, who was part of the Constitution Bench that laid down landmark guidelines on passive euthanasia in 2018 in the Common Cause case, said the latest decision brings long-awaited relief to the man’s family. By reaffirming the principles laid down in that judgment, he added, the Supreme Court has once again shown its commitment to protecting the rights of citizens.

In its 2018 ruling, the Supreme Court had recognised the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right and framed guidelines allowing terminally ill patients to exercise that right.

In their petition before the court, Rana’s family argued that withdrawing life support would help restore his dignity after years of irreversible suffering. They said passive euthanasia is legally permissible when medical experts confirm that a patient has no realistic chance of recovery.

The court was informed that two medical boards constituted on its directions examined Rana and concluded that his condition was irreversible. They confirmed that he had remained in a permanent vegetative state for more than a decade.

The family emphasised that their request was not driven by a desire to cause his death but by the belief that it was not in his best interests to continue living in such a condition.

The court noted that Rana survived only through clinically administered nutrition through percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes, and medical experts had unanimously concluded that continuing treatment would only prolong biological existence without any possibility of recovery.

Reflecting on the circumstances, the bench observed that the case also revealed the strength of a family’s love. Despite the tragedy, Rana’s family stood by him for years and continued to care for him without abandoning him.

The judges said their decision was not simply a matter of legal logic but one that lay at the intersection of love, loss, medicine and compassion. They clarified that the order was not about choosing death but about recognising when medical treatment no longer heals or restores life.

Allowing nature to take its course, the court said, becomes necessary when treatment merely prolongs survival without offering any real chance of recovery.

Addressing Rana’s family, the bench acknowledged the emotional burden of the decision and described it as an act of compassion and courage. The court said the family was not giving up on their son but allowing him to leave with dignity, reflecting their deep love and devotion