ABSTRACT
The judgment in the case of Harish Rana v. Union of India marks an evolutionary step in the development of the law of euthanasia. The facts of the case are that the patient has been in a permanent vegetative state for more than a decade. The patient is maintained on life support and has no chance of recovery. In this context, the family sought permission to withdraw the life support. The Supreme Court was called upon to evaluate the constitutional validity of the request in the context of the right to life and liberty provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The judgment in this case relied on the precedents in the case of Common Cause v. Union of India. The right to life includes the right to die with dignity. The important aspects of the judgment in this case were the clarification that Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration is medical treatment and can be withdrawn. The court rejected the narrow approach that passive euthanasia was only possible in the case of the terminally ill and the ventilator-dependent patient. The court held that it was possible in the context of an irreversible vegetative state in which the patient was unable to recover. The judgment in this case highlighted the conflict between the sanctity of life and the preservation of human dignity. The judgment in this case marked an important shift in the approach of the court in favour of the more humane and pragmatic approach to the Constitution. The judgment in this case marked an important shift in the law of medical law. The judgment in this case raised important ethical issues.
INTRODUCTION
The question of whether an individual has the right to die with dignity, just as he or she has the right to live, is one of the most complex and contentious issues in Constitutional law and society today. The evolution of the right to die in India has witnessed significant developments over the years, from the sanctity of life to dignity and quality of life. The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Harish Rana v. Union of India is significant in that it addresses the issue of the implementation of passive euthanasia in conformity with the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The previous landmark judgments of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab [1]stated that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India does not include the right to die. However, in the landmark case of Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India[2], the aspect of passive euthanasia is recognized and approved in India. The more recent landmark case of Common Cause v. Union of India [3]recognized that an individual has the right to die with dignity and that living wills are valid. However, the accuracy and precision of the judgment are ambiguous and uncertain. The case of Harish Rana v. Union of India & Ors[4]., which is the case in question, is significant in that it addresses the issue of the withdrawal of life support from vegetative patients who do not show any chance of improvement and the emotional trauma of the practitioners in implementing the same.
[1]AIR 1996 SC 1257
[2]AIR 2011 SC1290
[3]AIR 2018 SC 1665
[4]2026 INSC 222