Supreme Court of India, New Delhi. File | Photo credit: Shashi Shekhar Kashyap
The Supreme Court on Thursday (Jan 15, 2026) reserved for hearing a plea by the family of Harish Rana, a 31-year-old man, to withdraw his life-sustaining treatment.
During the nearly hour-long hearing, Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan heard submissions made by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati for the Union government and Advocate Rashmi Nandakumar, appearing for Mr Rana’s family.
At one point, Justice Viswanathan asked what would happen in the situation if the family emotionally decided not to proceed against the medical opinion.
Justice Pardiwala suggested that the medical board must not step in until and unless there is written consent from the family to withdraw life support.
The hearing stressed the importance of the family making a “consistent and well-considered” decision.
Ms. Nandakumar said hospitals should appoint doctors to be part of the medical boards tasked with conducting medical examinations in cases where family members come forward with a wish to withdraw life support.
“This could be done so that the Chief Medical Officers do not have to nominate a doctor every time an application is made. So that time is not wasted,” Ms. Nandakumar explained.
Defense counsel urged the court not to use the terminology of “passive euthanasia” in its judgment and instead use “withdrawal/denial of life-sustaining treatment.” Justice Pardiwala said the idea was in the judges’ minds from day one.
The bench personally met Mr. Rana’s parents and siblings, who said they did not want him to suffer anymore.
“All the three, i.e. father, mother and younger brother, with one voice and with a lot of pain in their hearts, fervently appealed before us to take necessary steps to ensure that Harish does not suffer any more… According to them, if medical treatment does not make any difference, then there is no point in continuing such medical treatment and making Harish suffer for no good reason,” noted Pardiwanas of Justice and KV details in JB. 12-page order published on Wednesday (January 14, 2026).
The court also noted Ms Bhati’s contention that the primary and secondary board of doctors who attended Mr Rana were also of the opinion that the treatment should be discontinued and “nature should be allowed to take its own course”.
“Doctors believe that Harish would remain in this permanent vegetative state (PVS) for years to come with tubes inserted all over his body. However, he would never be able to recover and lead a normal life,” the court said in its January 15 order.
Mr Rana suffered severe head injuries and 100% quadriplegia after falling from the fourth floor of his paying guest accommodation as a student of Panjab University in 2013. He has now been bedridden for over 13 years.
A report jointly submitted in court by lawyers representing the family and the government quoted Mr Rana’s father as saying that his son “cannot speak, hear, recognize anyone or eat on his own; he is completely dependent on artificial life support, including a feeding tube… He shared his deep concern that both parents were now aging and asked with visible concern who would take care of Mr Harish if something happened to them”.
Passive euthanasia: Supreme Court reserves judgment in Harish Rana case | Key points
The Supreme Court reserved its verdict on an application by Harish Rana’s family for permission to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, citing irreversible health conditions and long-term suffering. | Video Credit: The Hindu
Published – 15 Jan 2026 14:14 IST
