The Supreme Court on Wednesday (December 18) considered the report submitted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) after examining a 32-year-old man who has been in a persistent vegetative state for the last 12 years following a fall from a building. The examination was conducted in connection with a plea seeking permission for passive euthanasia. The Court has now indicated that it wishes to personally interact with the man’s parents on January 13, while directing the counsels to study the medical report to assist the Court in passing final orders.

The matter is being heard by a Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, on a miscellaneous application filed by the father of the patient, seeking withdrawal of all life-sustaining treatment being administered to his son. As per the framework laid down in the 2018 Constitution Bench judgment in Common Cause, as modified by the order dated January 2023, the Court is required to obtain opinions from both Primary and Secondary Medical Boards before granting permission for passive euthanasia.

In accordance with these directions, a Primary Medical Board was constituted earlier, which reported that the chances of recovery were negligible. The report noted that the patient has been bedridden, dependent on a tracheostomy tube for breathing and a gastrostomy tube for nutrition. It further recorded that the patient had developed severe bed sores, as evident from photographs placed on record.

Subsequently, the Court directed that the case be examined by a Secondary Medical Board constituted by AIIMS, New Delhi. During the hearing today, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed the Court that the AIIMS report had been received. After perusing the report, Justice Pardiwala described it as “very sad” and remarked that the young man could not be made to continue living in such a condition indefinitely.

As copies of the report had not yet been supplied to the petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Rashmi Nandakumar, and ASG Bhati, the Court directed that the same be furnished to them. Addressing the counsels, the Court observed that it had reached a stage where a final decision would have to be taken and sought their detailed assistance. The Bench acknowledged the emotional and legal complexity of the matter, noting that the situation posed a significant challenge for the Court as well.

ASG Bhati submitted that before any final order is passed, it would be necessary to consult the family members of the patient. Accepting this submission, the Court stated that it would prefer to interact with the parents in person, observing that such a sensitive matter would not be appropriate for online interaction. Accordingly, the Court directed the parents to remain personally present before it on January 13.

In its order, the Court recorded that pursuant to its earlier direction dated December 11, a Secondary Medical Board was constituted at AIIMS, which examined the patient and submitted its report on December 16, 2025. The report includes the medical history, general and neurological examinations, and diagnostic observations. The Registry was directed to supply copies of the report, as well as the Primary Medical Board’s report, to both counsels. The Court further requested the counsels to jointly speak with the parents and other family members of Harish Rana and submit a report in this regard. The counsels were also directed to place their submissions in writing to facilitate the passing of final orders.

The application has been filed by the father of the patient, who had earlier approached the Supreme Court in 2024 seeking permission for passive euthanasia. At that time, the Court had declined the request, but pursuant to its observations, the State of Uttar Pradesh had agreed to bear the cost of the medical treatment. The father later moved the present miscellaneous application, stating that his son’s condition has further deteriorated and that he has not responded to any medical intervention.

Case Details: Harish Rana v. Union of India | MA 2238/2025 in SLP(C) No. 18225/2024