SC allows passive euthanasia, Centre needs to take its cue

For 13 years, the parents of Harish Rana lived in a cycle of grief and hopelessness. A fall from the fourth floor of a building when he was 18 had left Rana with a 100 per cent quadriplegic disability. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court paved the way for a modicum of closure to their emotional, and financial, difficulties. A two-judge bench directed the removal of clinically administered nutrition (CAN) that had kept the 31-year-old alive, but in a vegetative state. The SC had allowed passive euthanasia in 2018. But the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, even in cases when doctors acknowledge the futility of their interventions, is fraught with complex ethical and medical questions. Rana’s parents had reportedly made up their minds to take the difficult decision two years ago. The Delhi High Court and the SC in 2024 had rejected their pleas on the ground that feeding tubes are not medical interventions. The apex court had, however, given them permission to approach it again. Wednesday’s verdict overrules the earlier jurisprudence on CAN.

The judiciary has been cautious about euthanasia. However, it has increasingly come around to the view that forcing patients to remain in an irreversible vegetative state may undermine human dignity. In Aruna Shanbaug v Union of India, the SC rejected euthanasia for the nurse who had been in a coma for around four decades. It also held that life-sustaining treatment for such a patient could be withdrawn under “strict conditions”, including approval of a High Court and consent of close relatives. The case laid the ground for the landmark verdict in Common Cause v Union of India (2018), which recognised the legality of passive euthanasia and introduced the concept of living wills — allowing individuals to specify that life-sustaining treatment be withdrawn if they are terminally ill. Hospitals and families found this procedure cumbersome. Five years later, the SC clarified the role of medical boards, whose evaluations would be critical. Wednesday’s ruling is grounded in a medical board’s opinion.

The SC has increasingly nuanced the Right to Life and led the search for humane answers to difficult questions about terminally ill patients. But experts have also pointed out that passive euthanasia can be prone to abuse — living wills can be manipulated, and patients pressured into signing their own death warrants. That’s why after Wednesday’s verdict, the SC asked the Centre to frame legislation. It should not waste any time in taking the cue.