India’s Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a landmark ruling as it allowed passive euthanasia for a 31-year-old man who had been in a coma for more than a decade.
Harish Rana, 31, has been in a coma since 2013 after he fell from the fourth floor of a building and suffered serious head injuries. He was bedridden and on artificial life support.
The Supreme Court directed the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Delhi to ensure withdrawal of life support with a plan specifically designed to preserve his dignity.
“Withdrawal must be done in a humane and sensitive manner. It cannot be abandonment of the patient, but must be done in an orderly manner that minimizes pain and ensures dignity,” the bench, comprising Justices JP Pardiwala and KV Swanathan, said, according to an earlier HT report.
Who is Harish Rana and what caused his coma?
Harish, a resident of Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh, studied at Punjab University in 2013 and lived in paid guest accommodation. Harish fell from the fourth floor of his house that year and this accident resulted in him suffering serious injuries to his head, as a result of which he fell into a coma and has been in a coma ever since.
Also read: MBA student dies after jumping from 13th floor of Noida high-rise: Police
It relies on feeding tubes for nutrition and hydration. Although he is not mechanically ventilated, he requires around-the-clock care and has shown no neurological improvement for over 10 years.
After years of treatment and therapy, Harish’s parents approached the court where they sought permission to withdraw the life-sustaining treatment, claiming that the ongoing medical intervention served no curative purpose but merely caused long-term suffering.
Supreme Court ruling on passive euthanasia
The initial medical committee that examined Harish’s condition indicated that his chances of recovery were slim. In December 2025, the court cited the medical committee’s assessment and said that the man was in a “pathetic condition.”
Read also: The latest episode in the US-Iran war: A rescue that never happened in the Strait of Hormuz
The court also interacted with Harish’s family before issuing its ruling. The court noted the pain expressed by his parents and younger brother, who unanimously urged that he not be subjected to further suffering if medical treatment could not improve his condition.
“What they tried to convey, in their own way, was to stop the medical treatment that had been given over a period of almost two years and allow nature to take its own course,” the court said.
“According to them, if medical treatment is not making any difference, then there is no point in continuing with such treatment and making Harish suffer without just cause. They believe that Harish is suffering like anything else and he should be relieved from all the additional pain and suffering,” the court noted in its order.
