In a sensitive and emotionally charged matter involving the right to die with dignity, the Supreme Court of India on December 18, 2025, decided to personally interact with the parents of a 32-year-old man who has remained in a vegetative state for the past 12 years, before taking a final decision on permitting passive euthanasia. The Court observed that the medical report submitted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) described the patient’s condition as “very sad” and raised serious concerns about the continuation of life-sustaining treatment.
The matter is being heard by a Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, in a miscellaneous application filed by the father of the patient seeking withdrawal of all life-sustaining medical support.
Background Of The Case: Vegetative State For Over A Decade
The patient, Harish Rana, suffered severe injuries after falling from a building 12 years ago and has since been in a persistent vegetative state. He is dependent on a tracheostomy tube for respiration and a gastrostomy tube for feeding, and has developed extensive bed sores due to prolonged immobility.
In 2024, the father had earlier approached the Supreme Court seeking permission for passive euthanasia. At that stage, the Court declined the request but, following its intervention, the State of Uttar Pradesh agreed to bear the medical expenses for the continued treatment of the patient.
Subsequently, the father filed a Miscellaneous Application, stating that his son’s condition had deteriorated further and that there was no improvement despite continued medical intervention, thereby reviving the plea for passive euthanasia.
Legal Framework: Passive Euthanasia Under Common Cause Judgment
The Supreme Court is examining the matter in light of the landmark Constitution Bench judgment in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), which recognised the legality of passive euthanasia and upheld the right to die with dignity as part of Article 21 of the Constitution.
As per the guidelines laid down in Common Cause, later modified by the Supreme Court in January 2023, courts are required to obtain opinions from:
- A Primary Medical Board, and
- A Secondary Medical Board,
before granting approval for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment.
Findings Of The Primary And Secondary Medical Boards
Pursuant to these guidelines, a Primary Medical Board was constituted, which reported that the patient’s chances of recovery were negligible. Considering the gravity of the matter, the Court subsequently directed that the case be examined by a Secondary Medical Board constituted by AIIMS, New Delhi.
On December 18, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed the Court that the AIIMS Secondary Medical Board had submitted its report on December 16, 2025.
After perusing the report, Justice JB Pardiwala remarked that it was a “sad report” and observed that the patient cannot be expected to continue living in such a condition indefinitely.
Court Seeks Assistance Of Counsels And Family Consultation
Since the AIIMS report had not yet been shared with the counsels, the Court directed the Registry to furnish copies of the report to:
- Advocate Rashmi Nandakumar, appearing for the petitioner (father), and
- ASG Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Union of India.
Addressing the counsels, the Court observed that it had reached a stage where a final decision would have to be taken, and therefore, thorough assistance would be required. The Bench noted:
“It’s a very sad report and it will be a big challenge for us also but we can’t keep the boy like this for all time to come.”
Supreme Court To Speak With Parents In Person
ASG Bhati submitted that before passing any final order permitting passive euthanasia, it would be essential for the Court to consult the family members, particularly the parents. Agreeing with this submission, the Court stated that it would prefer to meet the parents in person, rather than through virtual interaction, given the gravity of the issue.
Accordingly, the Court directed that the parents of Harish Rana be personally present before the Bench on January 13, 2026, at 3:00 PM, in the Committee Room.
The Court also requested both counsels to:
- Jointly speak with the parents and other family members,
- Submit a report of such interaction, and
- File their written submissions to assist the Court in passing a reasoned final order.
Operative Directions Passed By The Court
In its order, the Supreme Court recorded:
- The Secondary Medical Board at AIIMS had examined the patient and forwarded a detailed medical report.
- Copies of the AIIMS report and the Primary Medical Board report were to be provided to both counsels.
- The counsels were directed to study the reports carefully and assist the Court.
- The parents were directed to remain present before the Court on January 13 at 3 PM for personal interaction.
Legal Significance And Constitutional Importance
This case once again brings into focus the complex ethical, legal, and constitutional questions surrounding passive euthanasia in India. While the right to die with dignity has been recognised, courts continue to exercise extreme caution, ensuring that:
- Medical opinion is unanimous and well-documented,
- Family consent is informed and voluntary, and
- Decisions are taken in the best interests of the patient.
By choosing to personally interact with the parents, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that human dignity, compassion, and careful judicial scrutiny must guide decisions involving end-of-life care.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to speak directly with the parents before permitting passive euthanasia highlights the judiciary’s sensitive and humane approach to end-of-life cases. As the Court prepares to pass its final order, this case stands as a reminder that constitutional adjudication, particularly under Article 21, must balance medical realities, family emotions, and the dignity of human life.
Case Title: Harish Rana v. Union of India
Case No.: MA No. 2238/2025 in SLP (C) No. 18225/2024
Also Read
