Supreme Court permits withdrawal of life support in India’s first passive euthanasia case
The Supreme Court on Wednesday permitted the withdrawal of life support for a 32-year-old man who has remained in a vegetative state for the past 13 years.
The patient, Harish Rana, suffered severe head injuries after falling from the fourth floor of an apartment building in Chandigarh in August 2013. Since the accident, he has been on life support.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan directed that “the medical treatment, including Clinically Assisted Nutrition (CAN) being administered to the applicant, shall be withdrawn/withheld,” while stressing that the process “must be carried out in a humane manner.”
Citing the “peculiar facts and circumstances of the present matter,” the court “waived the reconsideration period of 30 days as all stakeholders are unanimous in their opinion that the medical treatment being administered to the applicant should be withdrawn/withheld,” the Supreme Court order said.
The court directed the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, to admit Rana to its palliative care department so that the withdrawal or withholding of his medical treatment, including CAN, can be carried out. AIIMS has also been asked to make all necessary arrangements to shift him from his residence to the department.
“AIIMS must ensure that such withdrawal and or withholding is carried out through a robust, palliative, and end-of-life care plan which is specifically tailored to manage symptoms without causing any discomfort to the applicant and ensuring that his dignity is preserved to the highest degree,” said the bench.
The bench noted that there is no comprehensive legislation addressing end-of-life care in the country and urged the Centre to enact a law in this regard.
The order came on a plea by Rana’s family, seeking permission to withdraw his medical facilities in terms of the SC’s 2018 five-judge bench ruling recognising the legality of “passive euthanasia” for terminally-ill patients.
The judgement laid down detailed guidelines for passive euthanasia, both in cases where the patient left an “advance directive” or “living will” stating that life support should be withdrawn if they slipped into terminal illness, and where no such directive was left behind.
In January 2023, another five-judge bench modified the court’s 2018 order to make the process of withdrawal of treatment for terminally ill patients less stringent and more workable. The changes included introducing timelines for each board to make its decision and limiting the role of the judicial magistrate in the process.
Rana’s family had earlier approached the apex court in 2024 but did not get relief at the time. The court, however, granted them liberty to move it again if the need arose. The family subsequently approached the court once again last year, leading to the present ruling.
(With agency input)
