Right to dignified death prevails over interest of the state: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday, March 11, 2026, that at a turning point when medical interventions are becoming increasingly useless and invasive and the chances of recovery continue to decline, the state’s absolute interest in preserving life must be subordinated to the patient’s right to dignity.

“When the degree of bodily invasion gradually increases and the prognosis for recovery gradually becomes poorer, a certain point arises where the absolute interest of the state in preserving life must serve the dignity of the individual, even if the person is unconscious or incompetent,” Justice JB Pardiwala said in his judgment approving the withdrawal of life support to a 32-year-old man who had been in a persistent vegetative state for over 12 years.

Also read | Everything you need to know: passive euthanasia

The court said that state interests should not be allowed to override the dignity that should be provided equally to individuals in life and death.

Justice Pardiwala said, “Dignity is the most sacred property possessed by a human being. Possession of it cannot be said to lose its sanctity either during the process of death or when death occurs.”

Temporarily keeping a terminally ill patient who is brain dead or suffering from PVS alive simply because doctors can take advantage of technological advances in medicine and forcing such patients to endure a slow, painful death is not fully compatible with the Constitution’s ideal of dignity.

“A cliff point will emerge where such prolonged medical treatment will constitute an affront to basic human dignity… Merely prolonging an inevitable death would incur heavy cost of pain and suffering, which would directly impact the right to die with dignity,” Justice Pardiwala said.