New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday (December 18) perused the medical report submitted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) concerning the examination of a 32-year-old man who has been in a persistent vegetative state for the past 12 years, in connection with a plea seeking permission for passive euthanasia.
A Division Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan noted that the AIIMS report had been received pursuant to the Court’s earlier direction for examination by a Secondary Medical Board constituted by AIIMS. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed the Court that the report was now available and had been placed on record.
After perusing the report, Justice Pardiwala remarked that it was a “sad report” and observed that the patient could not be made to continue to live in such a condition.
The Court did not pass final orders at this stage but expressed its desire to interact with the parents of the patient on January 13 before taking a final decision in the matter. The Bench also indicated that the counsels appearing for the parties should study the medical report and assist the Court by way of written submissions to enable it to pass final orders.
The plea is being considered in terms of the guidelines laid down by the Constitution Bench in Common Cause v. Union of India, which govern the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in cases where there is no reasonable prospect of recovery.
The case arises from a petition filed by the father of the patient, who has been in a persistent vegetative state since 2013 after sustaining severe injuries in a fall from a building. The petitioner has sought permission for passive euthanasia, contending that the patient has no chance of recovery and is surviving solely on clinically assisted nutrition and life support.
In 2024, the Supreme Court had declined a similar request and directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to ensure continued medical care for the patient. However, a fresh application was filed in 2025, asserting that the patient’s condition had deteriorated further and that continued medical intervention had become futile.
Pursuant to the Court’s directions, a Primary Medical Board constituted at the District Hospital, Ghaziabad, examined the patient at his residence and opined that the chances of recovery were negligible. Following this, the Court directed the constitution of a Secondary Medical Board at AIIMS to independently assess the patient’s condition, leading to the submission of the report now under consideration.
The matter is expected to be taken up for final consideration after the Court interacts with the parents and examines the medical opinion on record.
Case Title: Harish Rana v. Union of India
