Today, the Supreme Court assed its first-ever order allowing passive euthanasia, in line with its 2018 Common Cause judgment — later modified in 2023 — which recognised a person’s fundamental right to die with dignity.

A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan allowed the withdrawal of life support for a 32-year-old man who has remained in an irreversible permanent vegetative state for the past 13 years after falling from a building. The Court passed the order on a miscellaneous application filed by the man’s father seeking permission to withdraw all life-sustaining treatment.

"Harish Rana, presently aged 32 years, was once a young, bright boy. He met with a tragic life-altering accident after a fall from the fourth floor of his paying guest accommodation.''

''His brain injury left him in a condition of Persistent Vegetative State (PSV) with 100% quadraplegia... Medical reports show that his medical condition has not improved in the past 13 years," the bench noted.

He has been surviving solely on Clinically Administered Nutrition (CAN), which is being provided through surgically inserted PEG tubes.

The Court held that Clinically Administered Nutrition (CAN) constitutes a form of medical treatment and can be withdrawn based on the considered opinion of the Primary and Secondary Medical Boards.

It observed that the continuation of such treatment was merely prolonging the patient’s biological existence without any therapeutic improvement.

The Court further noted that both the patient’s parents and the Primary and Secondary Medical Boards were of the view that the CAN being administered to the patient should be discontinued, as its continuation was not in the patient’s best interest.

The Court mentioned that when both the Primary and Secondary Medical Boards have certified the withdrawal of life support, there is ordinarily no need for judicial intervention. However, since this was the first such instance, the matter was placed before the Court. The Bench also emphasised that the withdrawal of life support must be carried out in a dignified manner.

"His family never left his side...to love someone is to care for them even in the darkest times," Justice Pardiwala stated.

The Bench also recorded its special appreciation for the parents of Harish Rana, acknowledging the immense love, care, and dedication they showed in looking after their son.

The Court, in its 2018 judgment in Common Cause v. Union of India, a recognised the right to die with dignity and laid down the procedure to be followed for passive euthanasia. These guidelines were later modified in January 2023. Under the framework, withdrawal of life support is permissible only after approval from both the Primary and Secondary Medical Boards.

This marks the first instance where the directions laid down in the Common Cause judgment have been judicially applied.

The petitioner, through his father, had first approached the Delhi High Court in 2024 seeking permission for passive euthanasia. In July 2024, the High Court dismissed the plea, observing that the petitioner was not terminally ill.

Later, in August 2024, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the plea but directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to bear the expenses of his treatment.

In 2025, the petitioner filed a miscellaneous application in the disposed matter, stating that his condition had worsened and there was no possibility of improvement. The Court then directed the constitution of a Primary Medical Board to examine his health.

The Primary Medical Board reported that the man’s chances of recovery were negligible. It noted that he had been bedridden with a tracheostomy tube for respiration and a gastrostomy tube for feeding. Photographs submitted before the Court also showed that he had developed severe bed sores.

Subsequently, the Court directed that the case be examined by a Secondary Medical Board to be constituted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. After perusing the report, Justice J. B. Pardiwala remarked that it was a “sad report” and observed that the man could not continue to live in such a condition. Before passing the final order, the Bench also met the parents.

Advocate Rashmi Nandkumar appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati represented the Union government.