Source: LiveLaw.in
Origin
The term “euthanasia” is
mostly understood as right to die with dignity under (Article 21), as it has
been a topic of legal-debate in India in 2026. For years, the Supreme Court
rejected the idea of passive euthanasia, because it was considered legally
uncertain, and criminal statues treated attempt to suicides or to end one`s
life as a conflict under Right to life (Article21). Euthanasia is of two types
one is passive euthanasia and the other is active euthanasia.
Difference between passive euthanasia and
active euthanasia?
Passive euthanasia occurs when the patient
is in a persistent vegetative state where he/she is
surviving only through the support, such
as ventilator or artificial feeding tubes. In this situation,
doctors allow the patient to die by
withdrawing the artificial life support. In contrast, active
euthanasia involves a doctor deliberately
administering a lethal injection or an overdose to end
life.
Case laws relating to passive euthanasia:
Aruna Shanbaug V Union of
India [(2011) 4 SCC 454]: Aruna, a hospital nurse, was
hospitalized in Mumbai in a persistent vegetative state and sustained by
artificial life support following a violent assault. On December 17, 2010,
activist and journalist Pinki Virani filled a plea in the Supreme Court seeking
to terminate Aruna’s life support. Although the Supreme Court constituted a
three -member medical panel to examine Aruna’s medical reports, Virani`s
petition to withdraw life support was ultimately declined.
Common Cause V Union of
India [ (2018) 5 SCC 1]: On February 25, 2014 a PIL was filed
by the NGO Common Cause. A three- judge bench of the Supreme Court observed
that the earlier decision regarding Aruna Shanbaug was misinterpreted and held
that passive euthanasia could only be permitted through legislative action.
Guidelines for use of passive euthanasia:
Following extensive legal
debates, the Supreme Court legally permitted passive euthanasia but under
strict legal guidelines. Passive euthanasia can be granted to a patient who is
in a permanent vegetative state, or has executed a valid living will.
Harish Rana V Union of
India [(2026) INSC 222]: In 2013, thirteen-years-old Harish
Rana suffered severe head injuries after falling from the fourth floor. In
2024, his father, Ashok Rana filed a petition in the Delhi High Court seeking
the withdraw of his son`s life artificial life support. The High Court rejected
the application, noting that Harish was not dependent on mechanical
ventilation, the Court was not satisfied regarding the terminal nature of the
illness, and removing the feeding tube would amount to starvation. The decision
was appealed to the Supreme Court on March 11,2026.
On March 11,2026, a
Supreme Court bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan
allowed the plea seeking passive euthanasia for 32- years- old Harish Rana, who
had been in a vegetative state for 13 years. This marked the first case where
the Supreme Court approved a direct plea for passive euthanasia. Following the
judgement Rana was moved to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS)
in New Delhi, where life- sustaining treatment was withdrawn, leading to his
demise shortly after in March 2026.
Significance and legal status of passive
euthanasia in India
Passive euthanasia is
legal in India under the precedent established in Harish Rana V. Union of
India, provided strict compliance with prescribed legal guidelines is
maintained. Legalizing passive euthanasia provides recourse to families of
terminally ill patients, allowing them to operate for passive euthanasia after
exhausting all medical treatment options.
Conclusion
The Harish Rana case
represents a land mark judgement in the legal history of passive euthanasia in India.
Previously viewed as unconstitutional, passive euthanasia is no longer treated
as such following this ruling. The Supreme Court adopted modern solutions by
establishing strict guidelines and recognizing living wills to prevent
potential misuse.
Juveria Mirza
1/5 LLB, PLC
