'Right to die with dignity': Supreme Court allows passive euthanasia for 32-year-old man in coma for 13 years

On January 15, the court reserved for judgment a plea by the family of Harish Rana, a 32-year-old man, who has been in a vegetative state for nearly 13 years, to withdraw life-support to him.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed passive euthanasia for a 32-year-old man who has remained in a permanent vegetative state for over a decade, in a first such order, on a plea by his family members, after noting they have exhausted every effort to care for him and continued to do so with unwavering dedication.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan said it is the first judicial implementation of its 2018 Common Cause judgment, which recognised the right to die with dignity.

The court emphasized the right to die with dignity is inseparable from the right to receive quality palliative and end of life care.

"Our decision today does not neatly fit within logic and reason alone. It sits in a space between love, loss, medicine and mercy. This decision is not about choosing death, but is rather one of not artificially prolonging life. It is the decision to withdraw life sustaining treatment when that treatment no longer heals, restores, or meaningfully improves life. It is allowing nature to take its course when medicine can only delay the inevitable because survival is not always the same as living,'' the bench said.

On January 15, the court reserved for judgment a plea by the family of Harish Rana, a resident of Ghaziabad, who has been in a vegetative state for nearly 13 years, to withdraw life-support to him.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, represented the central government, and advocate Rashmi Nandakumar the family of Harish, who has been sustaining life only on Clinically Administered Nutrition (CAN) administered through surgically installed PEG tubes.

The court noted the patient's parents and the primary and secondary medical boards have concluded that the CAN administered to the patient should be discontinued, as it is not in the patient's best interest. The bench ordered the medical treatment, being administered to the applicant would be withdrawn and/or withheld.

The court directed AIIMS here to grant admission to the applicant in its Palliative Care department so that the withdrawal and/or withholding of the applicant’s medical treatment can be given effect to.

The court found the treatment currently being administered to the applicant constituted “medical treatment”. Secondly, it has been conclusively determined that the continued administration of it is no longer in his “best interests” in view of unanimous consensus arrived at by the parents/next of kin and the constituted medical boards.

The bench said Harish was once a young, bright boy who met with a tragic, life-altering accident after falling from the fourth floor of his paying guest accommodation.

The brain injury left him in a persistent vegetative state (PSV) with 100% quadriplegia and medical reports showed his condition has not improved in the past 13 years, the bench found.

In its judgment, the bench said the applicant has lived a life defined by pain and suffering, stripped of his ability to even voice his anguish.

The brain injury left him in a persistent vegetative state (PSV) with 100% quadriplegia and medical reports showed his condition has not improved in the past 13 years, the bench found.

In its judgment, the bench said the applicant has lived a life defined by pain and suffering, stripped of his ability to even voice his anguish.

"We note with immense respect that the applicant’s parents and siblings have stood as unyielding pillars of support. They have exhausted every effort to care for him and continue to do so with unwavering dedication. We can only place on record our deepest appreciation for their boundless love, endurance, and kindness in the face of such adversity. This case reveals the most enduring is the resilience of love," the bench said.

To Harish’s family, the court said, this decision can feel like an act of surrender, but it is, in truth, an act of profound compassion and courage.

"You are not giving up on your son. You are allowing him to leave with dignity. It reflects the depth of your selfless love and devotion towards him,'' the bench said.

The court said the greatest tragedy in life is not death but abandonment, and the applicant’s family never left his side, and he has been cared for, protected, and cherished every moment.

On January 13, the bench personally met Harish's parents and his younger brother, who had communicated to the judges that they did not want him to suffer anymore.

This is the second time that the parents approached the Supreme Court seeking passive euthanasia for Harish. In November 2025, the court took note of a Union Health Ministry report that suggested Harish would be in home care, with assistance from the Uttar Pradesh Government and regular visits from doctors and a physiotherapist.