Last Updated:March 11, 2026, 11:24 IST

SC applied the principles laid down in the Common Cause vs Union of India (2018) judgment, which recognised fundamental right to die with dignity and was later modified in 2023.

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has allowed passive euthanasia in a specific case, permitting the withdrawal of life support for a 32-year-old Ghaziabad man who has been in a persistent vegetative state. The court granted approval on Wednesday after considering the patient’s medical condition and the circumstances placed before it.

The ruling allows doctors to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. It is the first case where the court has permitted passive euthanasia under its guidelines.

The order was passed by a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan. The court applied the principles laid down in the Common Cause vs Union of India (2018) judgment, which recognised the fundamental right to die with dignity and was later modified in 2023.

The court was hearing a miscellaneous application filed by the patient’s father seeking withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment.

Patient in vegetative state for 13 Years

The patient, Harish Rana, suffered severe brain injuries after falling from the fourth floor of his paying guest accommodation. The accident left him in a Persistent Vegetative State with 100 per cent quadriplegia.

Medical reports showed that his condition had not improved for more than 12 years. He survived only on Clinically Administered Nutrition delivered through surgically installed PEG tubes.

Court on medical treatment

The court held that Clinically Administered Nutrition is a medical treatment and can be withdrawn based on the judgment of Primary and Secondary Medical Boards. It noted that continuing treatment only prolonged biological existence without therapeutic improvement.

Both the patient’s parents and the medical boards had concluded that the treatment should be discontinued as it was not in the best interest of the patient.

Directions issued by the court

The court directed that medical treatment, including Clinically Administered Nutrition, be withdrawn. It also ordered the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to admit the patient to its palliative care centre and facilitate his transfer from home.

The bench said the withdrawal of life support must be carried out in a dignified manner with a tailored plan.

Guidance for future cases

The court said that when Primary and Secondary Medical Boards certify withdrawal of life support, judicial intervention would not normally be required. However, the present matter was placed before the court as it was the first instance of applying the earlier guidelines.

High Courts were asked to direct Judicial Magistrates to receive intimation from medical boards about decisions to withdraw treatment. The Central government was also asked to ensure that Chief Medical Officers maintain panels of registered doctors for secondary medical boards.

The court further recommended that the Union government consider bringing comprehensive legislation on passive euthanasia.

Background of the case

Following the court’s earlier directions, a Primary Medical Board examined the patient and said his chances of recovery were negligible. He had been bedridden with a tracheostomy tube for breathing and a gastrostomy tube for feeding, and photographs showed severe bed sores.

The court later asked AIIMS to form a Secondary Medical Board to examine the case. After reviewing the report, Justice Pardiwala described it as a “sad report".

The father had earlier approached the Delhi High Court, which declined his request to form a medical board. He then approached the Supreme Court in 2024.

At that time the court did not grant the plea but, after its suggestion, the Uttar Pradesh government agreed to take care of the patient’s treatment. The father later filed another application stating that his son’s condition had worsened and that he was not responding to any treatment.

News india In A First, Supreme Court Allows Passive Euthanasia For 32-Year-Old Man In Coma For 13 Years

Read More