LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Harish Rana v. Union of India and Ors.

Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 222Decided 11 Mar 2026
MA-002238 - 2025 (in SLP(C) No. 18225 of 2024)
Justice J.B. Pardiwala · Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Background

Harish Rana, a young engineering student, suffered a catastrophic fall in 2013 that left him in a permanent vegetative state with quadriplegia, sustained for over 12 years through Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) via a feeding tube. His parents first approached the Delhi High Court seeking a Medical Board referral to consider withdrawing life support, but the High Court declined, holding he was not being "kept alive mechanically." After the Supreme Court initially arranged for enhanced home care in November 2024 (with liberty to return if needed), a further hospitalization in May 2025 convinced the family that continued treatment was futile and causing him only suffering, leading to this fresh application seeking withdrawal of CANH in line with the Court's earlier five-judge Constitution Bench guidelines in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018, modified 2023).

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that CANH administered through a feeding tube does qualify as "medical treatment" that can be withdrawn or withheld under the Common Cause framework, and, applying the "best interest of the patient" test (surveying comparative law from the USA, UK, Ireland, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, and the EU), found: based on unanimous concurring opinions from both a Primary and Secondary Medical Board confirming Harish was in an irreversible permanent vegetative state with no prospect of benefit from continued treatment: that continuing CANH was not in his best interest. The Court directed that his treatment be withdrawn/withheld through a structured palliative and end-of-life care plan at AIIMS, waived the usual 30-day reconsideration period given the complete unanimity of the family and both medical boards, and used the opportunity to substantially streamline the Common Cause guidelines: clarifying home-care patients can be admitted to any hospital for reassessment, requiring District Chief Medical Officers nationwide to maintain standing panels of doctors for Secondary Medical Boards (nominated within 48 hours), directing High Courts to instruct Magistrates on receiving intimations in such cases, and urging Parliament to enact a comprehensive end-of-life care statute rather than relying indefinitely on judicial guidelines.

Lesson Learnt

Indian law recognizes passive euthanasia (withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, including artificial feeding/hydration) as part of the constitutional right to die with dignity under Article 21, available even without an advance medical directive, through a structured medical-board process, but this remains distinct from and does not permit active euthanasia (assisted dying). Families facing such situations should know that a clear legal pathway exists, though the Court has flagged that permanent legislation, not just judicial guidelines, is needed for real clarity.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case