The family of a 32-year-old man from Ghaziabad, who has remained in a coma for more than twelve years, approached the Supreme Court seeking permission to withdraw artificial life support. In their plea, they stated that allowing passive euthanasia would restore his dignity after prolonged and irreversible suffering.
The Supreme Court granted permission for passive euthanasia to Harish Rana, who has been in a permanent vegetative state since 2013. He suffered severe head injuries after falling from the fourth floor of his paying guest accommodation on August 20 of that year, leaving him entirely dependent on artificial medical support.
Soon after the judgment was delivered, a large gathering of journalists and television crews assembled outside the Brahm Raj Empire residential society in Ghaziabad, where the family currently lives. Security at the housing complex was tightened, and access for outsiders was restricted to ensure privacy and order.
Rashmi Nandakumar, the advocate representing the family before the Supreme Court, informed PTI that the family was emotionally overwhelmed and not in a position to speak publicly about the verdict. Attempts by PTI to contact Harish’s father, Ashok Rana, were unsuccessful as calls went unanswered.
Despite the family’s reluctance to engage with the media on the deeply personal matter, local residents spoke about the sacrifices made in caring for Harish over the years. Neighbours described the family’s sustained efforts to pursue medical treatment and support despite severe financial hardship.
Residents stated that Ashok Rana and his wife, Nirmala Rana, had sold their house in Delhi to cover their son’s extensive medical expenses. They also said Ashok Rana, who previously worked in the catering department of a major hospitality chain, now survives on a modest monthly pension of approximately ₹3,600.
Another resident, requesting anonymity, said that Ashok Rana supplements his income by selling sandwiches at nearby cricket grounds during the mornings to support the family’s basic needs. The resident appealed to the media to respect the family’s privacy and allow them time to process the court’s decision.
In written submissions to the court, the family explained that Harish Rana has remained in an irreversible and incurable permanent vegetative state with 100 percent disability for over twelve years. He survives only through clinically assisted nutrition and hydration delivered via a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube.
They argued that the artificial feeding system merely sustains biological survival and offers no therapeutic benefit, nor any possibility of reversing the extensive brain injury. Continuing such intervention, they said, would only extend life artificially without hope of recovery.
Referring to Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the Right to Life with Dignity, the family stated that the law permits withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment when a patient’s condition is both incurable and irreversible and medical care only prolongs suffering.
They pleaded that passive euthanasia and removal of life-support systems are legally permissible when certified by medical experts that recovery is impossible. Their request, they said, was grounded in legal precedent and medical evaluation.
According to their submissions, two medical boards constituted under the Supreme Court’s direction examined the case and concluded that Rana’s condition was irreversible and that he had remained in a permanent vegetative state for more than a decade.
The secondary medical board further observed that the feeding tube provided only nutritional sustenance for survival and could not restore cognitive function or reverse neurological damage.
The family clarified that their plea was not driven by a desire to cause death but by concern that prolonging life in such a state was not in Harish’s best interests. They said the issue before the court was whether life should continue to be artificially sustained rather than whether death itself was preferable.
They also informed the court that Harish had been cared for at home by his parents for several years, which delayed the formal medical board review process outlined in the Supreme Court’s guidelines on withdrawal of life support.
In 2024, the family moved the Delhi High Court seeking directions to constitute a medical board under the Common Cause guidelines. However, the plea was dismissed on the ground that Harish was not dependent on mechanical life support systems.
The family then approached the Supreme Court, which directed authorities to provide home-based medical care with assistance from the Union Health Ministry and the Government of Uttar Pradesh, while granting liberty to seek further legal directions.
After Harish’s condition worsened and he was hospitalised in May 2025, the apex court ordered the formation of primary and secondary medical boards to reassess his medical status. Both boards concluded that his neurological condition was irreversible and that continued intervention would not improve his state.
The family maintained that their request to withdraw life-sustaining treatment was supported by medical findings and aligned with the legal framework established by the Supreme Court on passive euthanasia.
They also emphasized that the guidelines laid down in the Common Cause v. Union of India were designed to ensure such decisions are made in the patient’s best interests while upholding the right to die with dignity.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court permitted passive euthanasia and directed the All India Institute of Medical Sciences to admit Rana for palliative care and develop a personalised plan for the phased withdrawal of treatment while preserving dignity throughout the process.
