The Supreme Court of India has permitted the withdrawal of life-support measures for Harish Rana, a man who has remained in a critical condition for more than a decade following a severe brain injury.
Delivering the ruling, Justice J.B. Pardiwala said the patient’s medical support system could be withdrawn, while also removing the earlier requirement of a 30-day reconsideration period in such cases.
Court Directs Treatment Under Medical Supervision
The court directed that Rana be admitted to All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi, where doctors will carry out the necessary medical procedures.
Justice Pardiwala emphasised that the withdrawal of medical treatment must be conducted in a humane and carefully supervised manner.
“The medical treatment should be removed gradually and under the supervision of doctors,” he said, adding that such a process does not necessarily have to take place inside a hospital and could also be carried out at home if required.
Family Can Decide In Patient’s Best Interest
The judge noted that when a patient is not in a position to make decisions independently, close family members are responsible for determining what would be in the patient’s best interest.
According to the court, the method by which Rana has been kept alive over the years effectively functions as a life-support system.
Justice Pardiwala described Rana as a talented young man whose condition deteriorated after a college accident caused severe brain damage.
Medical reports presented before the court indicate that there has been no improvement in his condition for the past 13 years.
Bench Refers To Passive Euthanasia Ruling
Justice Pardiwala also noted that his colleague, Justice Dipankar Datta Vishwanathan, had written a separate judgment that would also be read, though both opinions reached the same conclusion.
The bench referred to the landmark Common Cause vs Union of India (2018) judgment, which recognised passive euthanasia and analysed issues of human dignity in decisions concerning life and death.
Justice Pardiwala said the court has attempted to further refine certain aspects of the 2018 ruling while considering global practices that assess decisions based on the patient’s best interests.
