The Harish Rana Case: All You Need To Know About India’s First Court-Approved Passive Euthanasia

In a landmark and emotionally significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday allowed the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for Harish Rana, a 31-year-old man who has been in a vegetative state for more than a decade.

The decision marks the first instance of court-approved passive euthanasia in India for a patient who had not left behind a living will.

Harish Rana was an engineering student at Punjab University in Chandigarh when tragedy struck in 2013. He suffered severe head injuries after falling from the fourth-floor balcony of his paying guest accommodation.

The accident left him with permanent brain damage, placing him in a vegetative state from which he never recovered.

Since then, Rana has remained bedridden and completely dependent on medical care. According to his family, he has been unable to speak, see, hear or recognise anyone since the accident.

He breathes with the help of a tracheostomy tube and receives nutrition through a gastrostomy feeding tube.

For years, Rana’s parents have been fighting a long legal battle seeking permission to withdraw life support for their son.

His father, Ashok Rana, said the family had exhausted their savings while caring for him over the past decade. They were also deeply worried about what would happen to him after they were no longer alive to take care of him.

In 2024, the family approached the Delhi High Court requesting passive euthanasia for their son. However, the court rejected the plea, stating that Rana was not dependent on a mechanical life-support system and was therefore technically able to sustain himself.

The family later moved to the Supreme Court, but their request was initially declined.

Aman Gupta Hooks Kozhikode’s Iconic Sweet Brand: boAt Co-founder Invests in Fulva Halwa

In 2025, they again approached the top court, explaining that Rana’s condition had deteriorated further and that he was effectively being kept alive artificially through medical intervention.

The Supreme Court agreed to reconsider the case and ordered an evaluation by two independent medical boards.

Both medical teams concluded that Rana had negligible chances of recovery and would never be able to live a normal life.

The boards reported that he had permanent brain damage, severe bed sores and required complete assistance for feeding, bladder and bowel movements.

They also noted that although Rana showed basic sleep–wake cycles, he had no meaningful interaction or awareness of his surroundings.

After reviewing the medical reports and hearing the family’s plea, the Supreme Court of India allowed the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment.

The court observed that Rana had not responded to treatment for years and remained entirely dependent on others for basic bodily functions.

The ruling allows the medical boards to now exercise their clinical judgement regarding the withdrawal of treatment.

India legally recognised passive euthanasia in 2018 following a landmark judgement by the Supreme Court. Passive euthanasia refers to withdrawing or withholding medical treatment that keeps a person alive, such as ventilators or feeding tubes.

However, active euthanasia, which involves intentionally helping someone end their life, remains illegal in India.

The law also recognises living wills, legal documents through which adults can specify what kind of medical treatment they want or do not want if they develop a terminal illness or become incapable of making decisions.

In Rana’s case, however, he had not created a living will before his accident, which made the legal process more complicated.

Following the verdict, Harish Rana’s father, Ashok Rana, told the media that the family was grateful to the court for its decision.

He described the ruling as “humanitarian”, adding that the decision was extremely difficult for the family but was taken with their son’s dignity in mind.

The case has also sparked a wider debate across India about end-of-life care, the ethics of euthanasia, and the importance of living wills.

For many legal experts and medical professionals, the judgment is seen as a major moment in India’s evolving conversation about the right to die with dignity.