NEW DELHI (Diya TV) — In a landmark ruling, India’s Supreme Court has allowed the withdrawal of life support for a 31-year-old man who has remained in a vegetative state for more than a decade. The decision marks the first instance of court-approved passive euthanasia in the country. The ruling centers on Harish Rana, who suffered severe brain injuries after falling from a fourth-floor balcony in 2013. Since the accident, he has stayed in a comatose state with no meaningful interaction with the outside world.
Rana’s parents fought a long legal battle to seek permission to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. They argued that their son had no realistic chance of recovery and that continued medical intervention only prolonged his suffering. The Supreme Court’s decision could influence future cases involving passive euthanasia and end-of-life care in India.
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that medical boards may proceed with the withdrawal of treatment after evaluating Rana’s medical condition. Judges noted that Rana has shown no meaningful response to treatment over the past decade.
Court records show that Rana experiences sleep-wake cycles but does not interact with others. He cannot perform any basic activities without assistance. Doctors have provided nutrition through a gastrostomy tube. He breathes through a tracheostomy tube inserted into his airway. According to medical assessments, he cannot speak, see, hear, or recognize people around him.
The court said two medical boards had already reviewed the case and found that Rana had permanent brain damage. Doctors also concluded that he has an extremely low chance of recovery. The judges allowed the boards to use their clinical judgment to decide when and how to withdraw treatment.
Rana’s parents first approached the courts several years after the accident. They told judges they had spent their life savings on medical care and worried about their son’s future once they were no longer alive. In 2024, they filed a petition with the Delhi High Court seeking permission for passive euthanasia. The court rejected their plea. Judges said Rana was not dependent on life-support machines and could sustain himself without mechanical assistance.
The family then approached the Supreme Court. The court initially declined the request. Last year, the parents returned to the Supreme Court with new medical evidence. They said Rana’s condition had deteriorated and that doctors kept him alive through artificial support systems. The court agreed to review the case again. It ordered medical boards to conduct detailed evaluations. Both boards concluded that Rana had no realistic chance of regaining normal brain function.
India legalized passive euthanasia in 2018. The law allows doctors to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under strict guidelines. However, active euthanasia remains illegal in the country. Active euthanasia involves intentionally causing a person’s death, often through medication or other direct actions.
Under Indian law, a patient may create a “living will.” This legal document allows adults to state their medical preferences if they develop a terminal illness or lose the ability to communicate. A living will can specify whether someone wants life-support treatment, artificial feeding, or other interventions.
In Rana’s case, no such document existed. He was unconscious immediately after the accident and never expressed his wishes about long-term medical care. Because of that, courts had to rely on medical evaluations and family requests when deciding the case.
The case has sparked discussion across India about the ethics of passive euthanasia. Some experts argue that decisions about ending life support should reflect a patient’s own wishes whenever possible. Critics say that allowing courts to approve withdrawal of treatment without a living will could raise concerns about self-determination. Supporters say the ruling shows compassion in situations where recovery is impossible.
Rana’s father, Ashok Rana, described the decision as deeply painful but necessary. In a statement on Wednesday, he said the family appreciated the Supreme Court’s “humanitarian” judgment.
“This is a difficult decision for our family,” he said. “But we are doing what is best for Harish.”
Legal experts say the ruling could guide future passive euthanasia cases in India, especially when patients have not left written medical directives. Courts may rely more heavily on medical boards to determine whether continued treatment serves any purpose.
For now, the Supreme Court’s decision closes a long chapter for Rana’s family. After more than a decade of uncertainty, doctors will determine the next steps in ending life-sustaining treatment.
The case also highlights a broader issue in India: the growing importance of living wills and advance medical directives. Experts say more awareness could help families and doctors make clearer decisions during difficult medical situations.
