The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on a deeply emotional and legally complex plea filed by a father seeking permission to withdraw artificial life support from his 31-year-old comatose son, who has been in a vegetative state for over 12 years following a traumatic brain injury.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan heard arguments for nearly an hour from Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Union government, and advocate Rashmi Nandakumar, appearing for the father, Ashok Rana.
Harish Rana, the man at the centre of the case, suffered serious head injuries in 2013 after falling from the fourth floor of a building while he was a student at Panjab University. Since then, he has remained completely bedridden and is being sustained through artificial means.
During the proceedings, the bench underlined the significance of family members making a “consistent and well-considered” decision when dealing with life-ending medical interventions. It recalled its January 13 interaction with Harish’s parents and younger brother, who told the judges they no longer wished for Harish to continue suffering. The bench noted, “What they tried to convey… was that the medical treatment imparted over a period of almost two years be discontinued and nature be allowed to take its own course.”
The judges recorded the family’s belief that continuing medical treatment would serve no purpose and would only prolong Harish’s suffering.
Advocate Nandakumar urged the court to refrain from using the term “passive euthanasia” and instead adopt the phrase “withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatment.” She also suggested that hospitals nominate doctors in advance who could form part of medical boards to assess such requests in future cases.
In line with the 2023 guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court, both a primary and secondary medical board were constituted to assess Harish’s condition. The reports from these boards painted a grim picture, noting the man’s vegetative state and negligible prospects of recovery.
The top court had earlier described the primary medical report as indicating a “pathetic condition” and termed the subsequent AIIMS report as “sad.” Despite these findings, the bench had initially hesitated to endorse the plea, pointing out that Harish was not on a ventilator or other mechanical support but was instead being fed via a food pipe.
Nonetheless, the court showed empathy toward the Rana family’s struggle. The family had sold their home to fund treatment and expressed helplessness in continuing long-term care.
This is the second time in two years that Ashok Rana has approached the apex court for permission to end his son’s artificial life support. In July 2023, the Delhi High Court had dismissed a similar plea, holding that Harish was not dependent on mechanical support and thus not a fit case for passive euthanasia.
The Supreme Court had initially agreed with this assessment but took a more compassionate turn after interacting with the family and reviewing comprehensive medical reports.
In an earlier hearing on November 8, 2024, the apex court took note of the Union Health Ministry’s suggestion that Harish be provided home care with the assistance of the Uttar Pradesh government. It had also stated that if home care wasn’t feasible, he could be shifted to the district hospital in Noida for proper medical care.
Now that the hearing has concluded and the court has reserved its judgment, the ruling will likely become a significant legal precedent in the interpretation and application of the 2023 passive euthanasia guidelines, especially in cases where the patient is not on mechanical life support but remains in a prolonged vegetative state.
