NEW DELHI: Harish Rana, the first person in India to be granted passive euthanasia, passed away on March 24, at AIIMS-Delhi. In an official statement, AIIMS confirmed that Rana died at 4:10 PM at the institute in New Delhi. He had been under the care of a dedicated medical team in the Palliative Oncology Unit (IRCH), headed by Dr. (Prof.) Seema Mishra, HoD of Onco-Anaesthesia. The institute also extended its heartfelt condolences to his family and loved ones during this difficult time.
“Harish Rana passed away at 4:10 PM on March 24, 2026 at AIIMS, New Delhi. He was under the care of a dedicated team of doctors and was admitted to the Palliative Oncology Unit (IRCH), led by Dr. (Prof.) Seema Mishra, HoD, Onco-Anaesthesia. AIIMS extends its heartfelt condolences to his family and loved ones during this difficult time,” the press release said.
Meanwhile, Harish Rana’s corneas and heart valves have been donated by his family, AIIMS sources said.
Earlier this month, in a landmark first, the Supreme Court permitted passive euthanasia for a 31-year-old man from Ghaziabad who has been in a persistent vegetative state for over a decade, observing that continuing life-sustaining treatment would no longer be in the patient’s best interest.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Vishwanathan allowed the withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) for Harish Rana, who has remained in a vegetative state since suffering an accidental fall from a building in 2013.
Passive euthanasia refers to the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment to allow a patient with no reasonable prospect of recovery to die naturally.
Expressing profound sadness while delivering the judgment, the court noted that all stakeholders, including the patient’s family and the medical boards constituted to assess his condition, were in agreement that continuing aggressive medical support would serve no meaningful purpose.
“In light of the unanimous consensus arrived at by the parents/next of kin and the constituted medical boards respectively, we are of the opinion that the medical treatment ought not to be prolonged any further,” the court observed.
Reflecting on the gravity of the case, the bench said the proceedings had highlighted the fragility of life and the profound suffering endured by the patient over the past thirteen years.
“Throughout the adjudication of this matter, we have been gripped by profound sadness. The issues in this matter have once again brought to the fore the fragility and transient nature of the life we live, and how swiftly the tide can turn for the worse. For the past thirteen years, the applicant has lived a life defined by pain and suffering. A suffering made all the more cruel by the fact that, unlike most of us, he was stripped of the ability to even give voice to his anguish,” the court noted in its judgment.
The bench also placed on record its appreciation for the patient’s family, observing that they had remained steadfast in caring for him throughout the years.
“We note with immense respect that the applicant’s parents and siblings have stood as unyielding pillars of support. They have exhausted every effort to care for him and continue to do so with unwavering dedication. We can only place on record our deepest appreciation for their boundless love, endurance, and kindness in the face of such adversity,” the judgment said.
Addressing the family directly, the court acknowledged the emotional burden of the decision and expressed that by seeking to pass euthanasia for their son, they were allowing him to leave with dignity.
“To Harish’s family, we want to acknowledge the deep emotional weight this decision carries. This decision can feel like an act of surrender, but we believe it is, in truth, an act of profound compassion and courage. You are not giving up on your son. You are allowing him to leave with dignity. It reflects the depth of your selfless love and devotion towards him,” the bench said.
The court also directed the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to facilitate the patient’s transfer to its palliative care department, where the withdrawal of medical support will be carried out in a structured and dignified manner.
The bench also noted the absence of a comprehensive law on end-of-life care and urged the Union government to consider bringing legislation in line with the principles laid down in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) in which the top-court had recognised the right to die with dignity as part of the right to life under Article 21 and had laid down guidelines permitting passive euthanasia.
“The prolonged absence of comprehensive legislation on end-of-life care has compelled this Court, time and again, to step in to fill the vacuum,” the court said. It further added a dedicated law, which, in this regard, would bring greater clarity and certainty to such emotionally complex issues. (With inputs from ANI)
