Thirteen years ago, Harish Rana, a B.Tech student in a Chandigarh-based institute fell from the fourth floor of his paying guest accommodation.

The consequence of the fall, a severe traumatic brain injury kept Rana in a permanent vegetative state.

On Wednesday, a Supreme Court division bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan allowed the family’s plea for passive euthanasia (withdrawal of life support) noting that the 31-year old has not been responding to treatment.

“He experiences sleep-wake cycles but exhibits no meaningful interaction and has been dependent on others for all activities of self-care. Harish has been on clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CAN) administered through a PEG tube and his condition has shown no improvement,” the Bench observed.

“This decision is not about choosing death, but rather about not artificially prolonging life. It is about allowing nature to take its course. To Harish’s family, we acknowledge the deep emotional weight this decision carries,” the Bench observed.

The apex court instructed the high courts of all the states to issue directions for the JMFCs to receive intimations from hospitals in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Common Cause v Union of India, in the event the primary medical board arrives at a unanimous decision to withdraw or withhold.

“Union with the respective secretaries of health and family welfare of all states and Union territories shall ensure that chief medical officers across the country forthwith prepare and maintain a panel of registered medical professionals with requisite qualifications,” the Bench said.

The Bench ruled that the medical board can exercise its discretion on withdrawal of life support in accordance with the guidelines laid down by Supreme Court in its 2018 judgement.

In 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench had recognised and gave sanction for passive euthanasia and living will/advance directives.

Euthanasia was legalised by the Supreme Court in the Aruna Shanbaug case. Shanbaug, a nurse, had remained in a vegetative state for over four decades following a sexual assault that left her paralysed with a severe brain damage.

The Bench had noted in the 2018 judgment that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity and the same includes the smoothening of the process of dying in case of a terminally ill patient or a person in persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery, wrote the Bar and Bench.

The family members had approached the Delhi High Court with the plea for a medical board to examine his condition and to consider whether life support system could be withdrawn in accordance with the 2018 guidelines laid down by the top court.

The high court turned down the plea saying that Rana was not on mechanical support and was able to sustain himself without external help. The high court also ruled that the question of euthanasia did not rise as Rana was not a terminally ill patient.

In 2024, the parents challenged the Delhi High Court order, seeking the constitution of a primary medical board.

The apex court had initially declined the petition, but allowed the parents to approach the SC again if in need of further directions.

The present petition was filed by Rana’s father as his condition remained unchanged and irreversible.

The court had reserved its verdict in the case on January 15.

After hearing the case at length, the court had reserved its verdict on January 15.