New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its judgment on a petition filed by Ashok Rana, the father of a 31-year-old man, seeking the withdrawal of artificial life support for his son, who has remained in a comatose state for over 12 years. The case raises complex legal, ethical, and medical questions surrounding end-of-life care and the practice commonly referred to as passive euthanasia.

The patient, Harish Rana, suffered severe head injuries after falling from the fourth floor of a building in 2013. Since then, he has been entirely dependent on artificial support, including feeding through a tube. The primary and secondary medical boards appointed by the court have repeatedly noted that his chances of recovery are negligible and described his condition as “pathetic” and “sad.”

Hearing Details

The bench, comprising Justices J. B. Pardiwala and K. V. Viswanathan, heard submissions from Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Union government, and advocate Rashmi Nandakumar, representing the petitioner, for nearly an hour. The court discussed whether the family’s wish to discontinue treatment could be considered under the guidelines for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment.

During the hearing, the bench emphasized the importance of the family taking a “consistent and well-considered” decision. Nandakumar requested that the term “passive euthanasia” not be used in the court’s judgment, preferring the phrase “withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment,” arguing that it more accurately reflects the legal and medical nuances.

Earlier, on January 13, the top court judges personally met with Rana’s parents and younger brother, who expressed that they did not want their son to continue suffering unnecessarily. The bench noted:

“According to them, if the medical treatment is not making any difference, there is no point in continuing with such treatment and making Harish suffer for no good reason. They believe that Harish is suffering like anything, and he should be relieved of all further pain and suffering.”

Medical Boards’ Findings

The Supreme Court had examined reports from two medical boards. The primary board had highlighted that Harish’s condition was extremely grave, with almost no prospect of meaningful recovery. The secondary board, constituted under the apex court’s 2023 guidelines for cases involving patients in vegetative states, corroborated these findings. These guidelines mandate the formation of a primary and a secondary medical board to provide expert opinions before life support can be withdrawn in such cases.

Previous Proceedings

This petition is the second time Ashok Rana has approached the top court regarding his son. In November 2024, the court had taken note of the Union Health Ministry’s recommendation that Harish be moved to home care, with oversight from the Uttar Pradesh government and regular visits by doctors and physiotherapists. If home care was not feasible, the patient could be transferred to the district hospital in Noida for proper medical support.

The Delhi High Court had earlier refused to refer the case to a medical board, stating that Harish was not on a ventilator or other mechanical life support, but was sustaining himself via feeding tubes, and therefore, passive euthanasia was not legally applicable. The Supreme Court, however, acknowledged the extraordinary difficulty faced by his elderly parents, who have been sustaining him for over a decade, even selling their house to fund his care.

Ethical and Legal Context

Passive euthanasia, as recognized in Indian law, involves the intentional withdrawal or withholding of medical interventions that prolong life when further treatment is deemed futile. The Supreme Court’s 2018 landmark guidelines established strict protocols, including the formation of medical boards and a careful review of the patient’s condition, to ensure that decisions are consistent with medical ethics and human dignity.

The court has previously underscored that families must make “well-considered” decisions and that medical boards should be composed of doctors appointed by hospitals to examine the patient. This case tests the application of these guidelines in a long-term coma scenario where treatment provides no prospect of recovery but continues to prolong existence.

Awaiting Judgment

After hearing arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court reserved its judgment. The case highlights the tension between the right to die with dignity and the legal safeguards designed to prevent abuse in cases involving vulnerable patients.

The court’s decision is expected to set an important precedent on how long-term vegetative cases are treated under Indian law and could provide clarity on procedures for withdrawing life-sustaining treatment when recovery is no longer possible.

For now, Harish Rana remains on artificial support, with his family awaiting the court’s final order, hoping for a resolution that respects both his dignity and the family’s ethical and emotional concerns.