India's First Passive Euthanasia: Last Rites Of Harish Rana Took Place In Delhi Today
The last rites of Harish Rana, the first person in India to receive passive euthanasia, were held today, March 25, 2026. The 31-year-old passed away on Tuesday at AIIMS-Delhi after more than 13 years in a coma.
On March 11, the Supreme Court of India passed a landmark judgment allowing passive euthanasia for Harish, who fell from a fourth-floor balcony in 2013 and suffered severe head injuries. Harish was a BTech student at Punjab University.
He had been in a coma since, with artificial support and occasional oxygen support.
After his death, his family has reportedly donated his corneas and heart valves, retrieved by the hospital.
Passive Euthanasia in India
The Supreme Court of India has reshaped the legal and ethical landscape of end-of-life care by authorising the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for a 32-year-old man in a permanent vegetative state (PVS). The court has transitioned passive euthanasia from a constitutional right to a practical reality.
The word ‘euthanasia’ is derived from the Greek words, meaning ‘good death’, commonly described as mercy killing. Euthanasia refers to the intentional acceleration of the death of a terminally ill patient through active or passive means to relieve the patient from unbearable pain or suffering.
Active euthanasia (i.e., administration of lethal injection) is legalised in a small number of countries and jurisdictions worldwide. However, many more countries permit passive euthanasia or negative euthanasia. Today, it is generally accepted that a terminally ill person possesses a common law right to refuse modern medical treatment and allow nature to take its own course.
Passive Euthanasia comes into two categories – voluntary and non-voluntary. Voluntary: consent is obtained from the patient; non-voluntary: consent is not available due to the patient’s condition, such as coma.
The recent Supreme Court judgement in Harish Rana addresses non-voluntary passive euthanasia. This applies to ‘incompetent’ patients who lack the capacity to provide consent or make informed decisions – such as in PVS, an irreversible coma, or those of unsound mind.
In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996), the Supreme Court held that the ‘right to life’ under Article 21 did not include a ‘right to die’.
While the 196th Law Commission Report (2006) began distinguishing between ‘mercy killing’ and the ‘withdrawal of life support’. It argued that refusing medical treatment that merely prolongs the process of dying is a ‘lawful omission’. The 241st Law Commission Report (2012) also supported passive euthanasia on humanitarian grounds and to protect doctors acting in a patient’s best interest.
In Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011), the court officially recognised passive euthanasia as legal under strict judicial supervision. This was further supported by the 2018 Common Cause Constitution Bench, which declared that the ‘right to die with dignity’ is an inseparable facet of the right to life under Article 21.
Despite the Common Cause guidelines, families often faced legal hurdles. Harish’s family first approached the Delhi High Court in 2024, but their plea was rejected because Harish was not on a mechanical ventilator. The High Court reasoned, that withdrawing the nutrition pipe will lead to starvation – an act of active euthansia.
Later, the Supreme Court ruled, that Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) such as PEG tubes or nasogastric tubes is a medical treatment, not just basic nursing care. However, the new judgement emphasizes that the withdrawal of treatment must never be an ‘act of abandonment’ rather must be governed by the ‘best interest of the patient’.
