What is the Supreme Court's stance on Harish Rana's medical condition?

The Supreme Court is reviewing Harish Rana's critical condition and has scheduled direct communication with his parents to discuss the possibility of withdrawing life-sustaining treatment.

How does Indian law address euthanasia and assisted suicide?

Assisted suicide is treated as a criminal offense in India, while the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment is approached differently under the right to die with dignity.

What legal framework governs withdrawing life support in India?

The framework has evolved through Supreme Court judgments since 2011, establishing procedures for medical boards and judicial oversight to permit withdrawal of life support in specific end-of-life scenarios.

Home / Crime and Justice / SC Weighs Withdrawing Life Support for Vegetative Patient

SC Weighs Withdrawing Life Support for Vegetative Patient

19 Dec

•

Summary

Court to speak with parents of Harish Rana, 31, in vegetative state.
Rana has been in a vegetative state for 13 years after a fall.
Legal framework for withdrawing life support has evolved since 2011.

SC Weighs Withdrawing Life Support for Vegetative Patient

The Supreme Court is contemplating the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for Harish Rana, a 31-year-old man who has been in a persistent vegetative state for 13 years following a student accident. Medical boards have reported that his condition has significantly deteriorated with minimal chances of recovery, prompting the court to directly engage with his parents. This case delves into the intricate legal framework governing end-of-life decisions in India.

India's law treats assisted suicide as criminal, akin to murder or culpable homicide. However, withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment, considered an omission rather than an action, is viewed differently. This distinction is rooted in Article 21's interpretation of the right to life, which includes the right to live with dignity. The Supreme Court has established that in cases of terminal illness or a persistent vegetative state, a person's choice not to undergo futile medical intervention is constitutionally protected.