CASE COMMENT: HARISH RANA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2026 SCC Online SC 358

Jeyashri R and Vishva R 

Government Law College, Madurai, Tamil Nadu, India.

ABSTRACT

The decision in the case of Harish Rana versus Union of India represents a landmark significance in Indian Constitutional jurisprudence regarding passive euthanasia.   Harish Rana has been under medical care for many years, lying in bed with artificial life support.  He suffered the same state of pain with a delay in the dying process.  Harish Rana’s parents’ unwavering love and support forced them to make a decision to withdraw life support to Rana.  Therefore, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Court to allow the withdrawal of life support to Harish Rana in his best interest.  Further, the Respondent appeared before the Court and humbly submitted their concern to preserve the dignity of Harish Rana in his death.  The Court observed “right to die with dignity” through the prism of self-determination, individual autonomy and privacy.  The Court referred to primary and secondary medical board submissions.  Notably, the Court allowed passive euthanasia.  The Hon’ble Court primarily relied on the Common Cause (2018) case to decide the matter with regard to passive euthanasia. This decision is not about choosing death, but is rather one not to suffer from artificially prolonging life.

Keywords: Life support, Best Interest, Right to die, Dignity, Passive euthanasia.

INTRODUCTION

This is one of the landmark cases regarding Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court bench, constituting of Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice K.V. Viswanathan, pronounced the judgment on March 11, 2026.  The essence of this judgement is primarily based on Constitutional, human, moral and scientific principles.  

In this case, the court examined CANH as a medical treatment, the principle of the best interest of the patient and the withdrawal of life support to the patient.  Finally, the Hon’ble Court applied various legal and scientific principles to decide on “allowing withdrawal of life support” to Harish Rana.

FACTS OF THE CASE¹

The petitioner Harish Rana was a young man aged 20, who was an engineering student at Punjab University fall from the fourth floor of his accommodation in 2013.  He suffered from a severe traumatic brain injury after that fall. It results in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) with irreversible brain damage and 100 per cent disability. 

The injury occurred over 12 years ago, and since then, he has been put under Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) treatment.  However, food was provided to him through a Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube. The family of Harish Rana and the doctors agree that the patient’s condition is permanent and there is no recovery.  

The Delhi High Court in 2024 rejected their petition, stating that the withdrawal of CANH treatment would result in him starving to death. The Supreme Court agreed with the view of the Delhi High Court but issued notice to the Union to shift the Petition to a facility that can cater to his needs.²

The Supreme Court basically backed the High Court’s view, but they’re not done yet. They’re asking the Union to look into shifting Rana to a facility that can cater to his needs, considering his parents are getting hit financially and are getting old.  In November 2024, on the final day of then Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s tenure, the Bench suggested that the Uttar Pradesh government provide aid for his medical expenses.³

After that, in October 2025, Rana’s parents filed a miscellaneous application, which was taken up by a Bench of Justices Pardiwala and Viswanathan.  Based on the Common Cause guidelines, the Bench set up the two-tier medical review process. In December 2025, the Hon’ble Court wrote that Rana’s case was the ultimate litmus test for the implementation of the Common Cause guidelines.

ISSUES RAISED

The issues raised in this Case are:

1.      Does CANH amount to “life-supporting” treatment?

2.      Whether the Court can deliver a verdict in the patient’s “best interests”?

3.      Does allowing withdrawal of the life support system violate the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution?

4.      Whether it is in the best Interest of the specific applicant (Harish Rana) that his life be prolonged by the continuation of medical treatment?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES

A.    PETITIONER ARGUMENTS

The parents, on behalf of the petitioner Harish Rana, seek a Miscellaneous Application to be allowed and the reliefs prayed for to be granted.

Some of the major submissions are as follows:

1.      The Petitioner argued that Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) is a form of medical treatment through a Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG). 

2.       They contended that continuing this treatment is not in Rana’s best interest because it is futile and does not help Rana to recover. It offers prolonged suffering and no hope of recovery, thereby violating Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. 

3.       The Petitioner also argued that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to die with dignity. They argued that the information of medical boards to access the situation is the established procedural guidelines.⁴.

4.       They stated that the family was affected by the moral responsibility to act in Rana’s best interest, and the family believed that the withdrawal of medical treatment would be his presumed wish. They wanted their son to experience a natural and peaceful death, which would allow him to maintain his dignity.⁵

5.      Therefore, the petitioner relied on the case Common Cause 2018, which was observed by the Court:

a)      The doctors have a duty of care to decide medical treatment in the patient’s best interest.

b)      The Court established a link between the right to dignity and medical intervention.

c)      The Court provided guidelines for allowing euthanasia for patients.

B.     RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS

The Respondent counsels, on behalf of the Union of India, submitted as follows:

1.      They submitted that a Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) constitutes a medical treatment because it is administered through medical devices, and it cannot be mere basic care.

2.       The Respondent submitted that removing artificial feeding mechanisms is a lawful cessation of artificial intervention, and it is not an unlawful act causing death. Further, the medical boards have also established that Rana is in an irreversible Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) with no hope of improvement, rendering continued treatment medically futile. 

3.      They further submitted that for over 13 years, the caretaker of Harish Rana has been his parents, who made a well-considered decision to allow Rana’s humane passing in their best interests. 

4.      The Respondent also relied on the case Common Cause 2018, which was observed by the Court:

a)      Withdrawal of medical treatment is constitutionally permissible if such medical treatment is futile.

b)      The removal of medical treatment does not amount to causing death. Rather, it constitutes cessation of an artificial medical intervention, allowing death due to an irreversible condition of the patient.

5.      The Respondent prayed that the government must be permitted to ensure the dignity, humane support and comfort of Rana during the withdrawal of CANH.

JUDGEMENT

A. RATIO DECIDENDI

The Hon’ble Court relied on the case Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) 5 SCC 1, in which the Supreme Court recognised that life should be lived with dignity.  In addition, an individual has the right not to prolong life artificially when it does not preserve their dignity.  

Further in  Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) 5 SCC 1 case, the court referred to Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab 1996 SCC (2) 648, the court overruled the previous decision, which declared that Article 21 does not include the right to die. The Court explained that people who wish to die with dignity at the end of their life have rights under Article 21.   

In the Common Cause (2018), the court also referred to Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India 2011 (4) SCC 454, the Supreme Court permitted passive euthanasia under strict supervision.

B. OBITER DICTA

The Hon’ble Court relied on several scientific definitions and principles to decide the case.  One such observation is from the ICMR Palliative & EOL Care Primer.  They defined the term ‘Palliative Care’.  Based on the definition, the Court states that palliative care creates an environment which meets several needs of both patient and parents, including the spiritual needs of the patient and parents. 

In addition, the Hon’ble Court relied on a famous quote of Shakespeare, “to be or not to be,” to interpret the liberty to die.

C. COURT’S OBSERVATION ON DETERMINED ISSUES

1.      CANH constitutes ‘medical treatment’ with respect to administration, refusal, withholding or withdrawal by a medical practitioner in good faith.

2.      The principle of the best Interest of the patient is predominantly determined by the court with reference to the Common Cause case of 2018.

3.      Withdrawal of medical treatment based on the primary and secondary medical board certification.  There is no requirement for court intervention, but it is subject to exception.

4.      The withdrawal of medical treatment must be carried out by doctors by following procedural frameworks step by step, without affecting the dignity of the patient.

D. COURT’S DECISION

The Supreme Court clearly examined all the medical experts’ reports and all the constitutional principles. The medical treatment can be stopped under specific circumstances, which include cases where recovery becomes impossible. The Court also confirmed that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, i.e. Right to Life and personal Liberty, includes the right to die with dignity when life-support systems provide no relief to the patient. Families become the decision-making authority if the patients reach an irreversible vegetative state.  

The process of withdrawing all the medical treatments needs to follow established principles, and doctors assess the situation to prevent any potential abuse. The Court said that the family members of the patient possess complete knowledge about their loved one’s best interests and their personal wishes, but family decisions are not absolute. 

The Court also highlighted the case Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India 2011 (4) SCC 454, which became a foundation for the judiciary to decide on allowing euthanasia.  In addition, the Hon’ble Court urged the parliament to enact comprehensive legislation to deal with this subject matter.

CONCLUSION

This case commentary provides an overview of the Supreme Court’s observations in the Harish Rana versus Union of India and others in the subject matter “right to die with dignity”. This judgement is purely based on humanity, morality, constitutional and scientific approach. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court prioritises “Best interest of the patient”.  

This ruling restores the Right to life, including the right to die with dignity. The Hon’ble Court adopted the Common Cause (2018) case guidelines to decide on this case regarding passive euthanasia. Therefore, this case took a new dimension in end-of-life care jurisprudence in India.