Supreme Court to Deliberate Euthanasia Plea, Meet Parents of Comatose Man

SC to meet parents of a comatose man, signaling a 'final call' on passive euthanasia.

Photo by Annabel Podevyn

The Supreme Court is set to make a "final call" on a passive euthanasia plea, announcing its decision to meet the parents of Harish Rana, a 32-year-old man who has been in a vegetative state for nearly 13 years. This move follows a "very sad" report from a secondary medical board constituted by the AIIMS director, indicating the gravity of the patient's condition.

The court acknowledged the significant challenge in such a case, emphasizing that the individual cannot be kept in this state indefinitely. This hearing is crucial as it delves into the complex ethical and legal dimensions of the 'right to die with dignity' and the parameters for passive euthanasia in India, building upon previous landmark judgments.

Key Facts

Supreme Court to decide on passive euthanasia plea

Case involves Harish Rana, 32, in vegetative state for 13 years

AIIMS medical board submitted a 'very sad' report

SC bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan

UPSC Exam Angles

Constitutional interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)

Role of the Supreme Court in judicial activism and setting legal precedents

Ethical dilemmas in medical jurisprudence and end-of-life decisions

Procedural safeguards for passive euthanasia and 'living wills'

Distinction between passive and active euthanasia, and physician-assisted suicide

Visual Insights

Evolution of Euthanasia Law in India: Key Milestones

This timeline illustrates the critical legal developments and landmark judgments that have shaped the understanding and legality of euthanasia, particularly passive euthanasia, in India, leading up to the current Supreme Court deliberation.

The legal journey of euthanasia in India has been marked by evolving judicial interpretations of the 'right to life' under Article 21. From initial debates on the 'right to die' to the landmark legalization of passive euthanasia and living wills, the Supreme Court has consistently sought to balance individual autonomy with societal ethics and the sanctity of life, refining procedures to ensure dignity and prevent misuse.

1994P. Rathinam v. Union of India: SC initially held 'right to die' as part of Article 21.
1996Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab: SC overturned P. Rathinam, stating 'right to die' is not included in Article 21. Suicide remained an offense.
2011Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India: SC allowed passive euthanasia for the first time, laying down initial guidelines for terminally ill patients in PVS.
2017Mental Healthcare Act, 2017: Decriminalized suicide (Section 309 IPC) for individuals suffering from severe stress.
2018Common Cause v. Union of India: SC recognized 'right to die with dignity' as an integral part of Article 21 and legalized passive euthanasia, allowing 'living wills' (advance medical directives).
2023Common Cause v. Union of India (Clarification): SC simplified guidelines for passive euthanasia, removing High Court approval and entrusting decision to medical boards and JMFC.
2025Supreme Court to deliberate Harish Rana's passive euthanasia plea, meeting parents and reviewing AIIMS medical board report.

More Information

Background

The debate around euthanasia, particularly the 'right to die with dignity', has a long history globally and in India. Historically, Indian law did not explicitly recognize such a right, and attempts to legalize euthanasia faced strong opposition due to ethical, moral, and religious considerations. The legal discourse began to evolve with the Supreme Court's expansive interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), which led to the recognition of certain aspects of the 'right to die with dignity' in specific, limited circumstances.

Latest Developments

The Supreme Court is currently deliberating a passive euthanasia plea for a man in a vegetative state for 13 years. This involves reviewing a medical board's report and meeting the patient's parents to make a 'final call'. This hearing builds upon previous landmark judgments and aims to address the practical and ethical challenges in such cases, especially when an advance medical directive (living will) is absent.

Practice Questions (MCQs)

1. Consider the following statements regarding passive euthanasia in India: 1. The Supreme Court, in the Aruna Shanbaug case (2011), permitted passive euthanasia for terminally ill patients, subject to strict guidelines. 2. The 'living will' or advance medical directive for passive euthanasia was first recognized and formalized by the Supreme Court in the Common Cause (2018) judgment. 3. Active euthanasia, which involves administering a lethal substance, is legally permissible in India under specific circumstances. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A.1 and 2 only
B.2 only
C.1 and 3 only
D.1, 2 and 3

Show Answer

Answer: A

Statement 1 is correct. The Aruna Shanbaug case laid down comprehensive guidelines for passive euthanasia for patients in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS). Statement 2 is correct. The Common Cause (2018) judgment further refined these guidelines and specifically recognized and formalized the concept of 'living will' or advance medical directive. Statement 3 is incorrect. Active euthanasia, which involves direct intervention to end a life, remains illegal in India.

2. In the context of the 'right to die with dignity' in India, which of the following statements is/are correct? 1. The Supreme Court has explicitly held that the 'right to die with dignity' is an intrinsic part of the 'right to life' under Article 21 of the Constitution. 2. This right implies an absolute right to terminate one's life at will, including through physician-assisted suicide. 3. The state has a legitimate interest in protecting life, which must be balanced against an individual's autonomy in end-of-life decisions. Select the correct answer using the code given below:

A.1 only
B.1 and 3 only
C.2 and 3 only
D.1, 2 and 3

Show Answer

Answer: B

Statement 1 is correct. The Supreme Court, particularly in the Common Cause judgment, affirmed that the 'right to live with dignity' includes the 'right to die with dignity' as an integral part of Article 21. Statement 2 is incorrect. The 'right to die with dignity' as recognized in India is not an absolute right to terminate one's life at will, nor does it permit physician-assisted suicide. It is specifically limited to passive euthanasia in cases of irreversible conditions. Statement 3 is correct. The judiciary consistently balances individual autonomy with the state's interest in preserving life, leading to stringent safeguards for passive euthanasia.

3. Which of the following procedural safeguards are mandated by the Supreme Court for the withdrawal of life support in cases of passive euthanasia for patients *without* an advance medical directive? 1. A primary medical board of three expert doctors must certify the patient's irreversible vegetative state. 2. The High Court's approval is mandatory before withdrawing life support. 3. Consent from the patient's parents or spouse is sufficient for the decision. 4. The decision must be publicly advertised to invite objections. Select the correct answer using the code given below:

A.1 and 2 only
B.1, 2 and 3 only
C.2, 3 and 4 only
D.1, 2, 3 and 4

Show Answer

Answer: A

The Common Cause judgment (2018) laid down stringent procedural safeguards for passive euthanasia, especially for patients without an advance medical directive. Statement 1 is correct: A primary medical board (of three expert doctors) and a secondary medical board (of three expert doctors, including the head of the department) are required to certify the patient's condition. Statement 2 is correct: The High Court's approval is mandatory to ensure judicial oversight and prevent misuse. Statement 3 is incorrect: While consent from family (parents, spouse, or next of kin) is crucial, it is not 'sufficient' on its own; it must be accompanied by the medical board's certification and High Court approval. Statement 4 is incorrect: Public advertisement to invite objections is not a mandated procedural safeguard, though the High Court may, at its discretion, seek wider consultation.

Source Articles

‘Can’t keep him like this for all time to come’: SC to speak with parents of man before deciding on passive euthanasia plea | Legal News - The Indian Express

The Indian Express·19 Dec 2025