Daijiworld Media Network – New Delhi
New Delhi, Mar 11: The Supreme Court of India has permitted the withdrawal of life-support measures for Harish Rana, a man who has remained in a critical condition for more than a decade after suffering severe brain injury in an accident.
Delivering the ruling, Justice J. B. Pardiwala said the patient’s medical support system could be withdrawn and removed the earlier requirement of a 30-day reconsideration period in such cases.
The court directed that Rana be admitted to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, where doctors will carry out the necessary medical procedures.
Justice Pardiwala emphasised that the withdrawal of medical treatment must be carried out in a humane and carefully supervised manner.
“The medical treatment should be removed gradually and under the supervision of doctors,” he said, adding that such a process does not necessarily have to take place only inside a hospital and could also be conducted at home if required.
The judge noted that when a patient is unable to make decisions independently, close family members have the responsibility to determine what would be in the patient’s best interest.
According to the court, the method through which Rana has been kept alive for years effectively functions as a life-support system.
Justice Pardiwala described Rana as a talented young man whose condition worsened after a college accident caused severe brain damage. Medical reports presented before the court indicate that there has been no improvement in his health for the past 13 years.
Justice Pardiwala also said his colleague, Justice Dipankar Datta, had written a separate judgment which would also be read, though both opinions reached the same conclusion.
The bench referred to the landmark Common Cause vs Union of India (2018) judgment, in which the Supreme Court recognised passive euthanasia and examined issues related to human dignity in decisions concerning life and death.
Justice Pardiwala said the court has attempted to further refine certain aspects of the 2018 ruling while also considering global practices that assess such decisions based on the patient’s best interests.