'The boy can't carry on': Grim AIIMS report prompts SC to speak to Harish Rana's parents in passive euthanasia case

Harish Rana has existed between breath and silence for more than twelve years. A young man, when his age was in his twenties, fell from a building, which put him into a permanent vegetative state. Harish is 32 years old today, bedridden, and dependent on life-sustaining equipment. Harish is a non-speaking, non-responsive patient whose physical self grows older while his mind remains stuck back in his childhood.

That was what the Supreme Court had to deal with on Wednesday. Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan reviewed a medical report submitted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, authored by a Secondary Medical Board, which had tested Harish to determine if passive euthanasia could be allowed in this case. The medical report, Justice Pardiwala said, “was very sad.”

“The boy simply can’t carry on living like that,” the judge declared in an open court.

But the Court did not pass its order right away. Rather, because of the weight of this moment, the Court has chosen to pause, not for more paperwork or procedures, but to hear from the people themselves who have shouldered this weight for more than a decade. The Court will address Harish's parents personally on January 13.

A life sustained, but not lived

Harish’s condition has been detailed from time to time in clinical reports in various hearings. A tracheostomy tube to help breathe, a gastrostomy tube to help eat, no significant neurologic function, and severe bed sores indicating immobilisation and pain. Both the Primary and Secondary Medical Boards have found that there is little to no chance of recovery.

Pictures introduced before the Court tell a tougher tale than words ever can. His body, which has been like this for years, bears the signs of the passing of time, not by neglect but by circumstance.

“This is the end of everything,” Justice Pardiwala had said during a previous hearing about bedsores that patients are unable to move or express pain.

The weight of the final decision

India’s jurisprudence on passive euthanasia is governed by the Constitution Bench judgment in Common Cause (2018), later refined in 2023. It requires medical consensus, procedural safeguards, and, most importantly, respect for human dignity.

Harish’s father initially opted to approach the Supreme Court in 2024. This was to seek consent or permission to withdraw the life-sustaining treatment. However, the Court denied the request, which was an indication that the State of Uttar Pradesh should make sure that the treatment was continued. An agreement was reached. However, after one year, the father came back, but this time he was driven by hopelessness.

In the plea, he stated that the health of his son had further deteriorated and the treatment was futile. What was ultimately needed now was not treatment but the prolongation of life.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed the Court on Thursday that the AIIMS report had been filed on December 16. The Court was hushed as the judges reviewed it. “Now we have reached a situation where we will have to take a final call,” Justice Pardiwala told the counsels. “It will be a big challenge for us also, but we can't keep the boy like this for all time to come.”

The Court directed that copies of both the Primary and Secondary Medical Board reports be given to the petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Rashmi Nandakumar, and the ASG to enable them to peruse the results and assist the Court comprehensively.

ASG Bhati argued that, prior to any final order, it was necessary to refer to the family for consultation. The Court concurred and even went further. “This is too important a matter for an online interaction,” the bench said.

A dialogue that transcends law

The Court has asked both counsels to talk together with Harish’s parents and submit a report. The parents have been asked to be present in person on January 13, 3pm, in the committee room of the Supreme Court.

This is an extraordinary case in many ways – one where constitutional law interacts with human grief in a way not protected by pleadings. The Court shall listen not only to the argument but to the anguish.

For his parents, it will be another long trip to Delhi, carrying a question that no parent ever should – When does letting go become a demonstration of love?