Best Interest Principle In Passive Euthanasia Jurisprudence (2026 Lens): Comparative Analysis Of The Supreme Court’s 2026 Refinements To
- IJLLR Journal
- 2 hours ago
- 1 min read
Best Interest Principle In Passive Euthanasia Jurisprudence (2026 Lens): Comparative Analysis Of The Supreme Court’s 2026 Refinements To Common Cause Guidelines On Withdrawing Artificial Nutrition/Hydration, Exploring Dignity, Autonomy, And Non-Voluntary Cases Through Natural Law Vs. Positivist Lenses
Arpita Pandey, SMS Law College, Khushipur, Varanasi.
ABSTRACT
The Supreme Court of India’s judgment in Harish Rana v. Union of India (2026 INSC 222, decided 11 March 2026) marks the first comprehensive application of the passive euthanasia framework laid down in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018). This article analyses the Court’s 2026 refinements, particularly the classification of Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) as medical treatment, the elaboration of the “best interest” principle, procedural streamlining, and mandatory palliative care. Focusing on non-voluntary cases involving patients in persistent vegetative state (PVS), it examines how these refinements balance dignity and autonomy under Article 21. Through a comparative philosophical lens, the article argues that while the judgment employs positivist procedural tools for predictability and safeguards, its substantive core draws upon natural law principles of inherent human dignity and qualitative flourishing. The analysis highlights the need for parliamentary legislation to codify this evolving jurisprudence.
Keywords: Passive euthanasia, Best interest principle, CANH withdrawal, Article 21, Dignity, Autonomy, Natural law, Legal positivism, Harish Rana (2026).
