New Delhi: After 13 years in a permanent vegetative state, 32-year-old Harish Rana’s life remains suspended between medical intervention and hope. Harish, a Delhi resident, has been unable to move or respond since a tragic accident in 2013, and survives solely through medical tubes that provide nutrition and respiratory support. On Thursday, the Supreme Court is set to deliver its verdict on whether his life-sustaining treatment can be withdrawn, potentially allowing him a dignified death—a case that could set a significant precedent in India.

A Life Frozen in Time

Harish was a civil engineering student at Chandigarh University when his life changed irrevocably. On August 20, 2013, he fell from the fourth floor of his paying guest accommodation on Raksha Bandhan, sustaining severe head injuries that left him completely disabled. Doctors confirmed that he could neither move voluntarily nor respond to external stimuli, placing him in a permanent vegetative state.

Since the accident, Harish has been admitted to AIIMS, New Delhi, where his parents have spent more than a decade by his bedside. The family’s life has been entirely consumed by his care; mounting medical expenses forced them to sell their Delhi home and relocate to Ghaziabad. Despite having two other children, Harish’s parents have devoted themselves fully to supporting his day-to-day survival.

Legal Battle for Euthanasia

India legalized passive euthanasia in 2018, allowing life support to be withdrawn in certain circumstances where continued treatment is deemed futile. However, applying this in individual cases remains legally complex and emotionally charged. Harish’s parents first sought permission for passive euthanasia from the Delhi High Court in 2024, arguing that his condition was irreversible and that continuing life support only prolonged suffering.

The Delhi High Court rejected their plea, stating that withdrawing feeding tubes would constitute active euthanasia, which remains illegal in India. Harish’s parents then approached the Supreme Court later that year, but their appeal was again dismissed. The court noted that Harish, despite being in a vegetative state, was not entirely dependent on machines for survival and thus did not fall within the strict parameters for passive euthanasia at that time.

Return to the Supreme Court

In December 2025, the parents approached the Supreme Court once more, emphasizing that Harish’s condition had not improved and that his continued survival was now entirely artificial. They argued that prolonging treatment under such circumstances placed severe emotional, physical, and financial strain on the family, while offering no hope of recovery.

A medical board appointed by the court examined Harish’s condition and concluded that his chances of recovery were “almost nil.” The board affirmed that he has been in a permanent vegetative state for over a decade, with no meaningful response to stimuli, and that continued medical intervention only maintains biological life without the prospect of consciousness or recovery.

National Debate on Right to Die with Dignity

The Harish Rana case has reignited a nationwide discussion on the right to die with dignity in India. Advocates for euthanasia argue that forcing families to continue treatment for patients with no chance of recovery imposes unnecessary suffering, both for the patient and their caregivers. Critics, however, caution that legalizing withdrawal of life support even in extreme cases could risk misuse or premature decisions, highlighting the need for stringent safeguards and medical oversight.

Experts note that India’s 2018 Supreme Court guidelines for passive euthanasia are highly specific: patients must be terminally ill or in a persistent vegetative state, medical boards must provide a formal opinion, and courts must approve any decision to withdraw life support. The Harish case is among the first where the Supreme Court is poised to formally rule on such a scenario after more than a decade of legal and medical scrutiny.

Emotional Toll on the Family

For Harish’s parents, the years have been marked by heartbreak and exhaustion. Daily care routines, hospital visits, and the emotional weight of seeing their son in an unchanging state have taken a profound toll. The parents’ other children have grown up witnessing the relentless demands of their sibling’s care, and the family has borne significant financial strain, having sold property and incurred years of medical expenses.

In court filings, the parents emphasized that continuing artificial life support for a patient with no hope of recovery prolongs suffering without serving any meaningful purpose. They urged the Supreme Court to allow Harish to pass away with dignity, under medical supervision and in accordance with the law.

Awaiting the Verdict

The Supreme Court has scheduled the final decision for January 15, 2026. If the court allows withdrawal of life support, it would mark the first known instance in India where a formal judicial order permits passive euthanasia in a long-term vegetative state. The ruling could provide clarity for similar cases across the country, giving families a legal avenue to end medical interventions when recovery is impossible.

Judges hearing the case have expressed the complexity and sensitivity involved, balancing ethical, medical, and legal considerations. The verdict will not only impact Harish and his family but could also set a legal benchmark for the implementation of passive euthanasia in India, shaping the future discourse on patient rights, medical ethics, and the dignity of death.

As the nation waits, Harish Rana’s story stands as a stark reminder of the challenges faced by families navigating the intersection of law, medicine, and human compassion, underscoring the profound ethical dilemmas surrounding end-of-life care in modern India.