1. Home
  2. Current Affairs
  3. Current News
  4. Supreme Court Allows Passive Euthanasia for Man in Vegetative

Supreme Court Allows Passive Euthanasia for Man in Vegetative

  • 12 Mar 2026

On 11th March 2026, the Supreme Court (SC) permitted the withdrawal of life support for a 32-year-old man who had been in a vegetative state for 13 years following a severe head injury sustained in 2013.

Key Points

  • Case Background: The patient, Harish Rana, suffered severe head injuries after falling from the fourth floor of an apartment building in Chandigarh in August 2013 and had remained on life support since then.
  • Supreme Court Bench: A bench of Justices J. B. Pardiwala and K. V. Viswanathan allowed the withdrawal of medical treatment, including Clinically Assisted Nutrition (CAN), citing the specific circumstances of the case.
  • Waiver of Reconsideration Period: The Court waived the usual 30-day reconsideration period as all stakeholders were unanimous that the medical treatment should be withdrawn.
  • Role of AIIMS: The Court directed the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, to admit the patient to its palliative care department and supervise the withdrawal of treatment.
  • Palliative Care Requirement: AIIMS was instructed to ensure a robust end-of-life care plan so that treatment withdrawal is carried out humanely while preserving the patient’s dignity.
  • Legal Context – Passive Euthanasia: The decision follows the Supreme Court’s 2018 Constitution Bench ruling that recognised the legality of passive euthanasia for terminally ill patients.
  • Living Will / Advance Directive: The 2018 judgment laid down guidelines for withdrawal of life support in cases where patients have left an advance directive (living will) and also in cases where no such directive exists.
  • 2023 Modification of Guidelines: In January 2023, the Supreme Court simplified the procedure for withdrawal of treatment by introducing timelines for decision-making by medical boards and reducing the role of the judicial magistrate.
  • Need for Legislation: The Court observed that India still lacks a comprehensive law governing end-of-life care and urged the Centre to enact legislation on the issue