Introduction:

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed a plea by a 30-year-old man, Harish Rana, seeking the constitution of a Medical Board to examine his health condition for the administration of passive euthanasia. Confined to his bed since 2013 due to severe head injuries, quadriplegia, and 100% disability, Rana sought the court’s intervention on the grounds that his family could no longer care for him and his condition showed no signs of improvement.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Harish Rana, represented by counsel Mr. Neeraj Gupta and his legal team, argued that he has been in a vegetative state for over a decade following a fall from the fourth floor of his paying guest house, resulting in diffuse axonal injury. The plea emphasized that Rana had not shown any signs of recovery in the last 11 years and had developed severe bed sores leading to further infections.

The family consulted numerous doctors, all of whom confirmed there was no scope for his recovery. Given their old age and inability to provide continuous care, the family felt overwhelmed and hopeless. They believed that passive euthanasia was a humane option to relieve Rana from prolonged suffering and to end his vegetative existence. The plea highlighted the emotional and financial toll on the family, arguing that continuing his life in such a state without any quality was unjust. The petitioner sought the constitution of a Medical Board to evaluate his health condition and determine the appropriateness of administering passive euthanasia.

The respondents, represented by Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj and other counsels, opposed the plea, arguing that active euthanasia is legally impermissible in India. They contended that the petitioner’s condition did not qualify for passive euthanasia as defined by legal precedents and medical ethics in the country. The counsel for the respondents emphasized that Rana was not on any life support system and could sustain himself without external mechanical aid. They argued that Indian law and Supreme Court judgments clearly prohibit any act that directly causes the death of a person, even if the intention is to relieve suffering. The respondents underscored that no physician or individual is permitted to administer lethal drugs to end a patient’s life.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Subramonium Prasad, delivering the judgment, referred to various Supreme Court rulings on euthanasia. He noted that while the court sympathized with the petitioner and his family, the plea did not meet the legal criteria for passive euthanasia. Justice Prasad observed that Harish Rana was not being kept alive by any mechanical means and could sustain himself without any external aid. The court stressed that Rana was not terminally ill and that no one, including physicians, could legally end his life by administering lethal drugs. The court acknowledged the family’s emotional and physical burden but reiterated that the law does not permit euthanasia in non-terminal cases where the patient can survive without life support. Justice Prasad cited previous Supreme Court judgments that clearly outline the legal boundaries for euthanasia, emphasizing that the current case did not fit within those parameters.