The Supreme Court held on Wednesday (March 11, 2026) that the state’s absolute interest to preserve life must become subservient to a patient’s right to dignity at a tipping point when medical interventions become increasingly futile and invasive while the chances of recovery keep dropping.

“When the degree of bodily invasion progressively increases, and the prognosis for recovery progressively decreases, there arises a certain point when the state’s absolute interest in preserving life must become subservient to the dignity of the individual, though he is unconscious or incompetent,” Justice J.B. Pardiwala said in a judgment upholding the withdrawal of life support to a 32-year-old man in a persistent vegetative state for over 12 years.

Also read | All you need to know about: passive euthanasia

The court said that the interest of the state must not be allowed to overpower the dignity which must be equally assured to individuals in the process of life and death.

“Dignity is the most sacred possession of a human being. Its possession can neither be said to lose its sanctity in the process of death nor when death occurs,” Justice Pardiwala observed.

Temporarily keeping alive a terminally ill patient who was brain dead or in PVS, solely because doctors are able to leverage the technological advancements in medicine, and compelling such patients to endure a slow, agonising death, cannot fully be compatible with the Constitutional ideal of dignity.

“There would arise a point of precipice where such prolonged medical treatment would stand as an affront to basic human dignity… Merely prolonging an inevitable death comes with the heavy cost of pain and suffering, which directly impacts the right to die with dignity,” Justice Pardiwala said.