New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its judgment on a deeply sensitive plea seeking permission for passive euthanasia of a 31-year-old man who has been in a permanent vegetative state for over a decade, highlighting the profound moral and legal dilemmas involved in judicial intervention in matters of life and death.

The case revolves around Harish Rana, a former Panjab University student, who suffered catastrophic head injuries in 2013 after falling from the fourth floor of his paying guest accommodation. Since the accident, Harish has remained entirely unresponsive, bedridden, and dependent on clinically assisted nutrition and hydration through feeding tubes. While not on mechanical ventilation, his condition requires round-the-clock care. Medical assessments over the years have consistently indicated negligible chances of recovery, with his condition classified as irreversible quadriplegia with total disability.

Harish’s parents, after years of providing care and pursuing medical interventions with no improvement, approached the Supreme Court seeking judicial permission to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. They argued that continued medical intervention served no therapeutic purpose and only prolonged their son’s suffering. Their plea specifically requested withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration under medically supervised palliative care protocols.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan heard extensive submissions from both the family and the Union government before reserving its decision. During the hearing, the bench openly reflected on the gravity of the matter. “We decide matters every day, but these issues are delicate. We are also mortals. Who are we to decide who lives or dies? Let us see,” the judges remarked, underscoring the ethical weight of adjudicating on matters that directly involve the end of human life.

The case is particularly significant as it could mark India’s first instance of judicially sanctioned passive euthanasia in practice, implementing the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the landmark Common Cause judgment (2018). In that ruling, the apex court recognized the right to die with dignity, permitting withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment under a structured legal and medical framework. However, despite the judgment being passed over seven years ago, the implementation of its directives in practical cases has been limited, and no passive euthanasia had been authorized under judicial supervision until now.

Following the filing of the plea, the Supreme Court had ordered the constitution of a secondary medical board at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in December 2025, after a primary board from Ghaziabad and Meerut reported that Harish suffered from total disability with negligible recovery prospects. The AIIMS board’s report, dated December 16, concluded that there was little to no possibility of neurological improvement and classified his condition as irreversible. The report provided a comprehensive review of Harish’s medical history, neurological assessments, and the prognosis, leaving the court to confront the ethical dilemma of whether continued life-sustaining treatment was merely prolonging suffering.

The Supreme Court’s subsequent interaction with Harish’s family on January 13 further underscored the human dimension of the case. In a personal meeting, the father, mother, and younger brother expressed unanimous anguish and a fervent appeal for the court to ensure that Harish does not continue to suffer unnecessarily. In an order dated January 14, the court recorded the family’s submission that if medical treatment no longer had any therapeutic value, prolonging it served no purpose other than to extend suffering.

Advocate Rashmi Nandakumar, representing Harish and his parents, submitted that judicial intervention would not have been required if the patient had been admitted to a hospital with concurrent medical board reports, as envisaged under existing guidelines. She further proposed that Harish could be shifted to a palliative care facility, where sedatives could be administered to ensure he does not experience acute pain during the withdrawal of feeding tubes. Nandakumar also suggested that hospitals maintain a roster of doctors for nomination to medical boards under the Common Cause framework, noting that states such as Goa, Maharashtra, and Karnataka had already implemented such measures.

The family specifically requested that withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration be carried out in accordance with palliative care protocols at the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS), Delhi, under medical supervision. The Union government, represented by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, supported the plea, acknowledging that the Common Cause judgment had not yet been implemented in practice and emphasizing that this could be the first case where its principles were practically applied. Bhati noted that the procedure could take place at home if the family desired, though the option of a palliative care facility had been left open.

During proceedings, the bench also addressed broader concerns that could influence future passive euthanasia cases. One such question pertained to the role of family members versus medical opinion in end-of-life decisions. The court queried, “When caregivers or family members differ from the medical opinion, which view should prevail?” suggesting that medical input should perhaps be sought only after family members formally express their wishes in writing.

The bench’s observations throughout the hearings reflected the extraordinary moral complexity of the matter. By explicitly acknowledging the limitations of judicial authority in determining life or death, the court highlighted the tension between legal principles, ethical considerations, and human suffering. At one point, the judges remarked on the delicate nature of such decisions, noting that mortal beings may not be fully equipped to decide on such profound issues.

Legal experts suggest that if the Supreme Court permits the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in Harish’s case, it would set a precedent for the implementation of the Common Cause framework in India, providing a legal pathway for passive euthanasia under strict medical and ethical oversight. Such a ruling would also clarify procedural standards, such as the constitution of medical boards, documentation requirements, and the involvement of family members, thereby operationalizing the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment.

For now, the court has reserved its verdict, leaving open the possibility of a landmark ruling that could shape India’s approach to end-of-life care, patients’ rights, and the ethical implementation of passive euthanasia. The case illustrates the ongoing tension in Indian jurisprudence between the right to die with dignity and the moral responsibility of the judiciary in preserving life.

As the Supreme Court deliberates, the nation watches closely, recognizing that the outcome could have far-reaching implications for families, healthcare providers, and legal frameworks surrounding end-of-life decisions. For the Rana family, the resolution of the case represents not only the legal validation of their decision but also an end to more than a decade of waiting, uncertainty, and suffering for their son.