Who is Harish Rana? Ghaziabad man in vegetative state for 12 years at centre of Supreme Court's passive euthanasia ruling

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has permitted the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for 31-year-old Harish Rana, who has remained in a permanent vegetative state for more than a decade after suffering a severe brain injury in a fall in 2013.

A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan allowed the plea for passive euthanasia filed by Rana’s family after noting that his condition had shown no improvement despite years of treatment.




The court said the medical board may exercise its clinical judgment on withdrawing life support in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the landmark 2018 judgment in Common Cause v. Union of India, which recognised passive euthanasia and living wills.

Harish Rana was a BTech student in Chandigarh when he fell from the fourth floor of his paying guest accommodation in August 2013. The accident left him with a severe traumatic brain injury and complete quadriplegic disability. Since then, he has remained bedridden and dependent on others for all activities of daily life.



According to the court, Rana exhibits sleep-wake cycles but shows no meaningful interaction with his surroundings. He has been receiving clinically assisted nutrition through a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube, and doctors have found no sign of recovery over the years.

After prolonged treatment failed to improve his condition, Rana’s parents approached the courts seeking permission to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. They argued that their son had been living in a persistent vegetative state for over a decade with no hope of recovery and that continuing treatment was only prolonging his suffering.

Earlier, the family had moved the Delhi high court requesting the constitution of a medical board to examine Rana’s condition. However, the high court declined the plea, noting that he was not on mechanical life support and was able to sustain himself without external aid, and therefore did not fall within the scope of passive euthanasia.

The family then approached the Supreme Court in 2024. As Rana’s condition remained unchanged and irreversible, his father filed a fresh petition seeking withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, including clinically assisted nutrition and hydration.

During the proceedings, the court noted the findings of medical experts that Rana had been in a permanent vegetative state for over a decade and had shown no meaningful neurological recovery.

Allowing the plea, the court said the competent medical board may take an appropriate decision on withdrawing treatment in accordance with the procedure and safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court.

In its landmark 2018 ruling in Common Cause, a Constitution Bench had held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity, which also encompasses the right to die with dignity in cases of terminal illness or irreversible vegetative states. The judgment allowed passive euthanasia under strict safeguards and recognised the validity of living wills or advance directives.

Harish Rana’s case is among the rare instances where the Supreme Court has considered and permitted the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in an individual case under these guidelines.