Is Dying without pain becomes a right ? Supreme court in Harish Rana’s Case

Who is Harish Rana ?

Harish Rana Was born on August 10, 1994,in Uttar Pradesh ,India.

Early Education

After all schooling phase ,He pursued his B.TECH engineering as a hostel student in Chandigarh

in Punjab University .

Incident

On August 2013 a regular day Harish Rana was studying with his books while sitting on the

balcony of 4th floor of his university hostel, Unfortunately he lost his balance and fell to the

ground which lead to head injury. During the accident he was aged about 19 years.

First Aid

Immediately he was taken to the nearby hospital by the hostel administration ,the doctor stated that heavy brain damage was seen and the doctor confirmed that he is in coma stage.

Family’s Effort to recover Harish Rana’s Life From Coma

His family after lot of efforts by selling their property’s , spending money on his medical

expensed to regain his health back for 13 years lost their hope and was in deep sorrow on his

daily painful treatment, they decided to approach judiciary for Passive Euthanasia [Mercy Killing ] .

Judicial Approach

After all struggling the family members of Harish Rana Decided to approach Judiciary after 13 years struggle , as a initiation of judicial process the family approached the Delhi High Court on Delhi High Court Decision

Unfortuately the Delhi High court rejected their prayer stating that “he is not under mechanical

ventilator so he is not qualified for Passive Euthanasia [ Mercy Killing ]” .

Approaching Supreme Court

Case Number ; MA Miscellaneous Application No. 2238 Of 2025

Applicant: Harish Rana

Respondents: Union of India and others

The family after lot of struggles and taking care of Harish Rana on daily basis with full

confidence approached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court and medical board examination

The court after examining the incidents carefully the court decided to appoint two medical board named primary medical board which was constituted as per supreme court guidelines [ based on Common Cause VS Union of India] and secondary medical board [AIIMS Board] to check Harish Rana’s Medical condition after examining the medical condition’s of Harish Rana in a vegetative state for 13 years they concluded their report that “no recovery is possible” and the medical board’s recommended their report based research to supreme court stating that “Their

condition is pathetic [Piteous] withdrawl of medical assistance is preffered”

Supreme court’s final direction :

The Supreme Court directed to shift him to palliative care under AIIMS doctor’s to initiate the painless death procedure and after 13 years of coma at the age of 31 years on March 24,2026 he passed away on AIIMS [ All India institute of medical sciences ] Delhi.

Legal History

For the first time in India the supreme court has allowed Passive euthanasia in Harish Rana’s

Case it will give a new phase of judiciary on handling this matter very consciously.

The whole world has been watching on such decisions and it will be a core change on passive euthanasia[Mercy Killing].

Aruna Shanbaug’s Case : The first application for Passive Euthanasia was made before the

Supreme Court for Aruna Shanbaug on 2011.

Common Cause Vs Union Of India’s Case : On 2018 in this case it discussed constitutional

fundamentals to right to die with dignity, the court finally issued guidelines for passive

euthanasia [ Mercy Killing ] but not executed any of them till Harish Rana’s Case.

Legal Point Of View

Article 21: Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India it gurantees that,

“No person shall be deprieved of their life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law”

Fundamental Nature: It is a core fundamental right under part 3 of the constitution.

Scope: The Supreme Court has interpreted “Life” To mean more than physical existence ; It

includes the right to live with human dignity,covering various aspects like health, livelihood and shelter.

Procedural Safeguard:The courts upholded in many cases that “A person’s Liberty can only be

restricted by a Valid Procedure established by law under article 21 of the constitution of India or by following the due process of law.

Significant Rights Vested Under Article 21 :

•Right to privacy

•Right to health and medical aid

•Right to clean environment [ pollution-free water and air ]

•Right to shelter

•Right to livelihood

•Right to legal aid

•Right to speedy Trial

•Right against solitary confinement and custodial torture

•Right to travel abroad

•Right to education [ Under article 21A ]

Supreme Court’s View

The supreme court of India in Harish Rana case Judgement clearly mentioned that to avoid

delay of procedures and time it has recommended the Union of India to create new law in order to avoid future long term suffering’s of an individual .

New Rulings Of Supreme Court

The supreme court has changed the day today term “Passive Euthanasia” to Withdraw Or

Withholding treatment” this new terminology is introduced in this Harish Rana’s Case .

Supreme Court On Article 21 of the constitution of India Article 21 which has been called as the heart of the constitution of India , The supreme court in Harish Rana’s Case upheld that “Right to Live with dignity” is also applicable for “Right to Die With Dignity” Under the rights vested under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Public Point Of Views

For Harish Rana’s Case ,

Positive Opinion’s of public on judgement,

• The pain he endured in coma stage for thirteen 13 years is a very cruel medical

harassment so by the way the supreme courts decision is appreciated.

•The financial loss and mental stage of the family has been lost for 13 years so the

decision is acceptable.

• The Decision of the Supreme Court will help future Sufferers of the same or related

incident providing them the liberty to right to die with dignity.

Negative Opinion’s of public on judgement,

• However the medical reports fails in many cases it is not regular to kill a person based on

a medical report in which he may recover fully and enjoy regular life whichever is

restricted by a medical practicioner is not correct.

• Some opinions bounces that the family’s effort to recover a ill person will gradually

reduce and they will in a sudden will approach judiciary mentioning this as a matter of

right the reduced effort to recover a person from illness will affect a person’s right to live

completely and without the patient’s knowledge killing him is considered cruel.

Related Case Judgements

• Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug Vs Union Of India [2011]

• Common Cause Vs Union Of India [2018]