Harish Rana V. Union Of India (2026 INSC 222): A Landmark Judgment On Passive Euthanasia In India
- IJLLR Journal
- Apr 4
- 1 min read
Updated: 7 days ago
Aprajita Ray, BA LLB (Hons), Deen Dayaal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur
ABSTRACT
The decision of the Supreme Court in Harish Rana v. Union of India (2026 INSC 222), delivered on 11 March 2026 by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, represents the first full judicial implementation of the passive euthanasia framework evolved in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) 5 SCC 1. The Court permitted the withdrawal of Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) administered through a PEG tube to a patient who had remained in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) since 2013. In doing so, the Court unequivocally held that CANH constitutes a form of medical treatment capable of lawful withdrawal where continuation no longer serves the patient’s best interests. The judgment significantly advances Article 21 jurisprudence by reaffirming that the right to life includes the right to die with dignity in narrowly circumscribed circumstances involving medical futility and irreversible suffering. It further refines the “best interests” doctrine through a dual medical board mechanism, mandates palliative and end-of-life care, and streamlines procedural safeguards for patients receiving home- based care. This article critically examines the constitutional reasoning, ratio decidendi, doctrinal evolution, and the broader implications of the judgment for Indian constitutional, medical, and end-of-life care jurisprudence.
Keywords: Passive Euthanasia, Article 21, Right to Die with Dignity, CANH, Permanent Vegetative State, Best Interests Test, Medical Boards
