Supreme Court to pronounce judgment on withdrawal of life support to a 31-year-old man
The Supreme Court is scheduled to announce its verdict on Wednesday, March 11, 2026, in the plea filed by the family of 31-year-old Harish Rana to withdraw life-sustaining treatment for him.
The judgment of the Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan may definitively draw the lines on when natural death is allowed to take effect. The decision may also be the first time the court has implemented guidelines regarding withdrawal of life support in practice.
The decision came after the Panel held lengthy, measured and multi-layered consultations with Mr Rana’s family, medical boards and both family members and consultants representing the Centre. A team led by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati visited Rana’s residence and submitted an eyewitness report to the Supreme Court.
Bench had personally met Mr. Rana’s parents and siblings, who said they did not want him to suffer any longer.
The court had also noted Ms Bhati’s submission that the primary and secondary panels of doctors who visited Mr Rana were also of the opinion that medical treatment should be stopped and “nature should be allowed to take its course”.
Mr Rana suffered serious head injuries and suffered a 100% paralyzing disability in 2013 after falling from the fourth floor of his accommodation as a paying guest as a Panjab University student. He has been bedridden for more than 13 years.
“Doctors are of the opinion that Harish will remain in this persistent vegetative state (PVS) for years to come… He will never be able to recover and live a normal life,” the high court said in its order dated January 15.
Do not use ‘passive euthanasia’ in trial: Family lawyer
During the hearings in the case, the Rana family’s lawyer, Rashmi Nandakumar, was seen urging the court not to use the terminology ‘passive euthanasia’ in its verdict and instead use the phrase ‘withdrawal/withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment’. Justice Pardiwala had said that this thought was in the minds of the judges from day one.
The hearings had considered the emotional weight of decisions in such cases, with Judge Viswanathan at one point asking what would happen if a distressed family changed their mind in a way that did not conflict with medical opinion. Justice Pardiwala had stated at the time that the medical board may not step in unless the family gives written consent to withdrawal of life support.
The importance of the family making a “consistent and well-thought-out” decision was emphasized at the hearing. Ms Nandakumar also said hospitals should appoint doctors to sit on medical committees appointed to conduct medical examinations in cases where family members suggest they want to withdraw life support.
Active euthanasia is illegal in India
In 2018, the Constitution Bench of the apex court upheld passive euthanasia and the right to grant advance medical directives or ‘Living Wills’ to smooth the dying process as part of the fundamental right to live with dignity. The court ruled that the fundamental right to life and dignity included in Article 21 of the Constitution “also includes the right to die with dignity.”
However, unlike Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying program (MAiD), active euthanasia is illegal in India due to misuse concerns. Former Canadian diplomat David Malone reportedly chose this option in November last year after being diagnosed with early Alzheimer’s.
One of the first indications of judicial recourse to passive euthanasia can be found in the 1996 Gian Kaur decision. Although in this case the Supreme Court considered the legality of punishing an attempt to die by suicide, it gave an “indication” that passive euthanasia would “accelerate the process of death” only in the case of terminally ill patients or patients in a persistent vegetative state.
In 2011, the high court came up with the tragic case of bedridden former Mumbai nurse Aruna Shanbaug, who admitted that she initially “felt like a ship in the unknown sea”. Shanbaug, who has been bedridden for more than four decades due to injuries sustained as a result of a sexual assault on her, was denied euthanasia. However, in its decision, the upper court determined the procedural principles regarding passive euthanasia. Shanbaug died four years later, in May 2015. The staff of KEM Hospital in Mumbai took care of him until his natural death.
‘Will to Live’
In 2018, the five-judge Constitutional Bench in the Common Cause case decided to provide further clarity by supporting the legality of passive euthanasia and the concept of the ‘Will to Live’, a pre-written directive to doctors for end-of-life medical care.
The court observed that a person’s dignity is lost if he is allowed or forced to suffer pain and suffering due to “unfair medical assistance” despite being in a persistent vegetative state.
The decision legalized passive euthanasia despite the government’s claims that it had drafted a bill called ‘Management of Terminally Ill Patients – Withdrawal of Medical Life Support Bill’, which was prepared in line with the recommendations of the Law Commission of India that life support could be withdrawn for patients in persistent vegetative state (PVS) or suffering from an irreversible medical condition.
“The right of a deceased person to die with dignity at the end of his life and in the case of a terminally ill or persistent vegetative person with no hope of recovery, to hasten the process of death to reduce the duration of suffering constitutes a right to life with dignity,” observed Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra (now retired) in the leading opinion.
Justice DY Chandrachud (now retired) observed in his separate opinion that “to deprive a person of his dignity at the end of his life is to deprive him of a meaningful existence.”
The Court defined “meaningful existence” to include the individual’s right to self-determination and the autonomy to decide on his or her medical treatment. Justice Ashok Bhushan (retired) held that the right to a dignified life includes a “dignified death procedure”. In a separate opinion, Justice AK Sikri (retired) said that although religion, morality, philosophy, law and society have conflicting views on whether the right to life includes the right to die, they agree that everyone should die with dignity.
It was published – 11 March 2026 09:34 IST
