Life, Law and Ethics: Supreme Court Reserves Verdict in Harish Rana Case

The Supreme Court has reserved its decision on a plea seeking permission to withdraw life support for 31-year-old Harish Rana, who has remained in a permanent vegetative state since 2013 after a fall from a building during BTech studies in Chandigarh.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan heard detailed arguments and noted the moral complexity of the case. The judges remarked, "These are very delicate issues. We decide matters every day, but who are we to decide about someone's life? We are mortals," reflecting the sensitivity involved.

Supreme Court life support case of Harish Rana: medical condition and treatment

Medical records before the Court state that Rana suffered a severe traumatic brain injury after falling from the fourth floor of his paying guest accommodation in August 2013. Since then, Rana has shown no meaningful recovery and has remained in what doctors describe as a permanent vegetative state with 100 per cent disability.

Rana currently survives on clinically assisted nutrition and hydration, delivered through a PEG tube. This is not mechanical ventilation but long-term tube feeding. His family asserts that there is no prospect of cognitive recovery, and that treatment now serves only to keep biological functions going without any improvement in awareness or responsiveness.

Supreme Court life support plea for Harish Rana: legal history and guidelines

The case first went before the Delhi High Court, where Rana's parents requested a Medical Board. They wanted independent experts to examine Rana and advise whether treatment could be withdrawn, relying on the Supreme Court guidelines laid down in Common Cause v. Union of India on passive euthanasia and advance directives.

The High Court rejected that request. It held that Rana was not on mechanical life support systems, such as a ventilator, and could sustain vital functions without such devices. The Court also ruled that because Rana was not terminally ill, the legal framework on passive euthanasia did not apply to his situation.

Supreme Court life support arguments in Harish Rana case

Rana's parents challenged the Delhi High Court decision before the Supreme Court in 2024. They again sought the constitution of a Primary Medical Board to assess Rana, followed if necessary by a Secondary Board, as envisaged in earlier Supreme Court rulings on end-of-life decisions.

The Supreme Court initially did not grant their request to form the Board but allowed the family to return if further directions became necessary. After Medical Boards were eventually constituted and Rana's condition remained unchanged and irreversible, Rana's father filed the present petition to stop life-sustaining treatment.

Appearing for the family, Advocate Rashmi Nandakumar argued that Rana's state is beyond cure. She submitted that he has complete, irreversible disability since 2013. "He fulfils the criteria of a permanent vegetative state and has been in this condition for the past 13 years. The continued administration of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration is only for sustaining biological survival," she said.

Nandakumar relied on Supreme Court judgments in Gian Kaur, Aruna Shanbaug and Common Cause. She contended that these cases recognise that the right to life under Article 21 also covers the right to die with dignity when treatment only prolongs suffering or a non-conscious existence, subject to strict safeguards and medical scrutiny.

She further argued that once both the Primary and Secondary Medical Boards give a clear opinion, the legal process should stop. "Both the reports in this case say that he cannot return to his original state. As of today, the process must end there," she argued, urging the Bench to allow withdrawal of CANH.

Supreme Court life support review of Harish Rana: government submissions

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, who was requested earlier to assist the Court, also addressed the Bench. Bhati informed the judges that the directions laid down by the Supreme Court in the Common Cause judgment had remained largely unimplemented in practice across institutions and hospitals.

Describing Rana's present state, Bhati told the Court, "Unfortunately, Harish Rana has been in a state of complete inertness. His eyes do not rack. He does not respond to fear or forceful objects. There is significant deterioration, My Lords," indicating a serious decline despite prolonged care based on medical evaluations.

After hearing all sides and examining the Medical Board reports, the Bench concluded arguments and reserved its verdict. The decision, when delivered, is expected to address how existing passive euthanasia guidelines apply to patients like Rana, who are not terminally ill but remain in a permanent vegetative state with no chance of regaining awareness.