Supreme Court To Speak With Parents Before Deciding To Allow Passive Euthanasia For Their Son

The Supreme Court today(December 18) went through the report of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) concerning the examination of a 32-year-old man, who has remained in a vegetative state for the past 12 years after falling from a building, for the purpose of administering passive euthanasia. The Court has now passed an order expressing its interest to speak the parents of the man on January 13 and for the counsels to study the report so that they can assist the Court in passing final orders.

It may be recalled that a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan is hearing a miscellaneous application of the father seeking to remove all life-sustaining treatment from his son. As per the guidelines laid down in the 2018 constitution bench judgment in Common Cause, as modified in the January 2023 order, the Court has to get the opinions of Primary and Secondary Medical Boards before allowing passive euthanasia.

Consequent to this, the Primary Medical Board was constituted, which reported that the man's chances of recovery were negligible. It was reported that he has been lying on the bed with a tracheostomy tube for respiration and a gastrostomy for feeding. The photographs showed that he has suffered huge bed sores.

Following, the the Court ordered the examination of the case by a Secondary Medical Board to be constituted by the AIIMS. Today, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed that the AIIMS report has come. Perusing the report, Justice Pardiwala remarked that it's a "sad report" and the boy can't continue to live like this.

Since the copy of the report was not shared with petitioner's counsel, Advocate Rashmi Nandakumar, as well as ASG Bhati, the Court directed that the report may be shared with them.

The Court informed the counsel: "We have reached a stage wherein we will have to take a final call. So your thorough assistance will be required. We will ask the registry to provide you with one copy of the report. Study the report. Ms. Bhati and Ms. Rashmi you will have to assist us. It's a very sad report and it will be a big challenge for us also but we can't keep the boy like this for all time to come."

ASG Bhati submitted that before the Court passes any order, consultation with the family would be required. Agreeing to this, the Court said it would like to meet the family in person. It added that in such an important matter, online interaction would not be appropriate. Therefore, the Court passed an order directing the parents of the son to be present on January 13.

It ordered: "In pursuance of our last order dated 11 December, a secondary medical board was constituted by the AIIMS, New Delhi. The team of doctors medically examined the patient, and a report has been forwarded on 16 December 2025. The report consists of the medical history, general examination, neurological examination and other observations made and diagnostic criteria. We direct the Registry to provide each copy to Ms Rashmi and Ms Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG. We request them to look into the report and study the same and assist us in the report.

We request them to jointly speak to the parents and other family members of Harish Rana and give us a report in that regard. We would also like to personally speak to the parents of Harish Rana. For this purpose, we request them to be personally remain present before us on 13 January at 3 pm in the Committee room. We request both counsels to keep their submissions in writing so that we can proceed with the passing of the final order. Let a copy of the primary board also be furnished to the counsels."

The Court was hearing an application filed by the father of the man. He had earlier approached the Supreme Court in 2024 seeking passive euthanasia for the son, seeking passive euthanasia. The Supreme Court had then refused to allow passive euthanasia, but on the Court's prodding, the State of Uttar Pradesh agreed to take care of the medical treatment.

The father later filed a Miscellaneous Application saying that the condition of his son has worsened and that he is not responding to any treatment.