The Supreme Court on Thursday said it wants to personally meet the parents of a 31-year-old man who has been in a comatose, vegetative state for more than 12 years, as it considers a plea seeking permission to withdraw artificial life support. The case raises difficult questions about passive euthanasia, medical prognosis, and the prolonged suffering of both the patient and his family.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan examined a detailed medical report prepared by a secondary medical board from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and described it as deeply distressing. “It is a very sad report. We cannot keep this boy in this stage,” the bench observed, while fixing a meeting with the man’s parents at 3 pm on January 13.
The court is hearing a petition filed by Ashok Rana, who has sought judicial approval to withdraw life-sustaining treatment for his son, Harish Rana. Harish suffered severe head injuries after falling from the fourth floor of a building in 2013 while he was a student at Punjab University. Since then, he has remained completely bed-ridden and dependent on artificial support systems.
Medical records placed before the court show that Harish has been on assisted respiration through a tracheostomy tube and receives nutrition through a gastrostomy tube. Photographs and assessments attached to the reports indicate that he has developed severe bed sores. Doctors from the primary medical board concluded that the chances of recovery are negligible and that he has remained in a vegetative condition for more than a decade.
Earlier, on December 11, the Supreme Court had noted the “pathetic” condition of the patient while recording the findings of the primary medical board constituted at the district hospital in Sector 39, Noida. The bench had then directed that the case move to the next procedural stage, in line with the Supreme Court’s 2023 guidelines on passive euthanasia, which require opinions from both a primary and a secondary medical board.
Following these directions, AIIMS was asked to constitute a secondary medical board and submit its report. The court also directed that all relevant documents, including the medical findings and excerpts, be forwarded promptly to the AIIMS Director.
The proceedings are part of a long legal battle. This is the second time in as many years that Harish’s parents have approached the Supreme Court seeking permission for passive euthanasia. On November 26, the court had ordered the constitution of a primary medical board after noting that the patient’s condition had deteriorated further. It had asked the board to specifically examine whether life-sustaining treatment could be withheld.
In earlier hearings, the Supreme Court had taken note of a report from the Union Health Ministry suggesting that Harish be shifted to home care with assistance from the Uttar Pradesh government, along with regular medical supervision. The court had also said that if home care was not feasible, he should be moved to a district hospital to ensure proper treatment.
The case has previously been examined by the Delhi High Court, which declined to constitute a medical board for passive euthanasia, observing that Harish was not on a ventilator or mechanical life support and was being fed through a food pipe. The Supreme Court had agreed with this assessment at the time, while also acknowledging the prolonged vegetative state of the patient and the immense financial and emotional strain on his ageing parents, who informed the court that they had even sold their house to fund his care.
Calling the matter a “very hard” case in earlier proceedings, the apex court has repeatedly emphasised the need to strictly follow the legal and medical framework governing passive euthanasia. The upcoming interaction with Harish Rana’s parents is expected to play a crucial role as the court weighs the medical findings against the ethical and legal standards laid down in its previous judgments.
