Supreme Court applies passive euthanasia framework for first time: Here is what the law says

Noting that all the stakeholders were unanimous, the bench waived the usual consideration period of 30 days and said the withdrawal must be carried out “in a humane manner”.

What was the case about and what does the law say about euthanasia? We explain.

What the court directed

The court asked AIIMS Delhi to admit Rana to its palliative care department so that the withdrawal of treatment can take place under medical supervision. “So that the withdrawal and or withholding of the applicant’s medical treatment, including CAN, can be given effect to. For this purpose… AIIMS shall provide all necessary facilities for shifting him from his residence to the said palliative care department,” the court said.

It directed that a care plan be followed to manage symptoms and ensure that his dignity is maintained.

It also issued administrative directions to streamline the procedure laid down in Common Cause. High Courts across the country were asked to ensure that judicial magistrates receive intimations from hospitals when primary and secondary medical boards decide to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment.

The Union government was asked to ensure that chief medical officers maintain panels of registered medical practitioners who can serve on secondary medical boards.

Under the Common Cause framework, withdrawal of treatment is allowed after assessment by two medical boards: a Primary Medical Board at the treating hospital and a Secondary Medical Board with an external nominee, which must certify that continuing treatment serves no medical purpose.

The bench also noted that India does not have a comprehensive law on end-of-life care and urged the Union government to consider legislation on the issue.

What was the case about?

Harish Rana, fell from the balcony of his paying guest accommodation as a young student and has remained in a vegetative state for 13 years. The Primary Medical Board recorded that he was “lying in bed with tracheostomy tube for respiration and gastrostomy for feeding”.

While the board found “intact brainstem function”, it said his vegetative state required “external support for his feeding, bladder bowel and back”. Describing his condition as “pathetic”, the court indicated it would examine whether life-sustaining treatment can be withheld or withdrawn.

His father had approached the Delhi High Court in 2024 seeking permission to withdraw treatment, but the petition was dismissed on the ground that Rana was not terminally ill.

The family then moved to the Supreme Court. In 2025, a fresh application stated that Rana’s condition had deteriorated, and there was no prospect of recovery. The top court had directed the constitution of primary and secondary boards to examine him. Both boards reported that the chances of recovery were negligible. In its previous order, the Supreme Court had noted that the family of Rana believes he “is suffering like anything, and he should be relieved of all further pain and suffering”.

The court had also noted that, based on the reports on the primary and secondary boards, the family was certain that “there is no sign, or rather no hope, for Harish to recover”.

What does the law say on euthanasia in India?

Assisted dying involves intentionally causing death through the administration of a lethal injection. In India, this directly attracts criminal liability and may amount to culpable homicide under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. When a doctor assists the patient in performing the act, criminal liability arises for abetment to suicide. Attempted suicide continues to be an offence, even though the Supreme Court has repeatedly observed that a person attempting suicide requires care, not punishment.

Withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment is treated differently because it involves stopping or not initiating medical intervention and allowing the underlying illness or injury to take its course. This distinction flows from Article 21, which the Supreme Court has interpreted the “right to life” to include the right to live with dignity.

For patients who are terminally ill or in a persistent vegetative state and life is “ebbing out”, the court has held that the Constitution protects the choice not to be kept alive through invasive or futile medical intervention.