Supreme Court Hearing on Life Support Withdrawal
The Supreme Court of India, on January 15, 2026, reserved judgment on a plea by the family of Harish Rana to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan heard the case, with inputs from Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati for the Union government and advocate Rashmi Nandakumar for Mr. Rana's family.
Key Discussion Points
- Family and Medical Opinion Conflict:
- Justice Viswanathan raised concerns about potential emotional decisions conflicting with medical opinions.
- Justice Pardiwala emphasized the necessity for a written consent from the family before involving a medical board.
- Role of Medical Boards:
- Advocate Nandakumar recommended that hospitals should have pre-nominated doctors for medical boards to avoid delays.
- The court was urged to use the term ‘withdrawing/withholding life-sustaining treatment’ instead of ‘passive euthanasia’.
Family's Appeal and Medical Opinions
- The court met Mr. Rana's parents and siblings, who collectively requested the cessation of life support to prevent further suffering.
- Medical boards concurred that continuing treatment was futile as Mr. Rana would remain in a permanent vegetative state (PVS).
Background of Harish Rana's Condition
- Suffered severe head injuries and quadriplegic disability due to a fall in 2013.
- Has been in a bed-ridden state for over 13 years, fully dependent on artificial life support.
- His father expressed concerns over the future care of Mr. Rana as the parents age.
The case highlights the complexities surrounding end-of-life decisions, balancing family wishes, medical opinions, and ethical considerations.
