Supreme Court Urges Centre to Enact Law on Passive Euthanasia

In Harish Rana v Union of India, the Supreme Court emphasised the urgent need for Parliament to enact a comprehensive law governing passive euthanasia in India. The Court made this observation while permitting withdrawal and withholding of life-sustaining treatment for 32-year-old Harish Rana.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan noted that India continues to face a legislative vacuum on end-of-life care. Because of the absence of a statutory framework, the judiciary has repeatedly been required to frame guidelines on the issue.

The case concerned Harish Rana, who has remained in a persistent vegetative state for more than thirteen years. After examining the medical and legal aspects, the Court allowed the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in accordance with constitutional principles and earlier judicial guidelines.

While deciding the matter, the Court also reflected on the long history of legal debates surrounding euthanasia in India. It pointed out that the issue had been examined by the 196th Law Commission Report (2006), which stated that withholding or withdrawing life support for terminally ill patients should not attract criminal liability when done in the patient’s best interest.

The Court further noted that the Law Commission had also identified Parliament’s authority to legislate on the subject under Entry 26 of the Concurrent List. A draft bill had been attached to the report for government consideration, but no legislative action followed.

The Bench referred to the landmark decision in Aruna Shanbaug v Union of India (2011), which dealt with the first major euthanasia case in India. In that judgement, the Supreme Court rejected active euthanasia but introduced guidelines permitting passive euthanasia in certain circumstances.

Subsequently, the 241st Law Commission Report (2012) reiterated the need for legal recognition of passive euthanasia. It also suggested improvements to the procedure involving medical boards that assess such requests.

The Court also recalled that the Union Government had once stated in Parliament that the Supreme Court’s guidelines were sufficient and that there was no proposal to enact a separate law. However, the present Bench expressed concern that relying solely on judicial guidelines cannot serve as a permanent solution.

The Court also referred to the Common Cause v Union of India (2018) judgement, where a Constitution Bench recognised the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. That decision laid down detailed guidelines for withdrawal of life support and recognised living wills.

Even in that judgement, Justice AK Sikri had expressed hope that the legislature would enact an appropriate statutory framework. However, the Court noted that eight years later, the anticipated legislation has still not been enacted.

In its latest ruling, the Supreme Court observed that the prolonged absence of legislation has forced the judiciary to intervene repeatedly out of constitutional necessity rather than institutional preference.

The Bench stated that the guidelines provided in the Common Cause judgement were intended only as interim safeguards. They were never meant to replace a comprehensive legal framework enacted by Parliament.

Therefore, the Court urged the Union Government to consider introducing a law that addresses end-of-life care and passive euthanasia in a clear and structured manner.

According to the Court, such legislation would bring clarity, certainty, and coherence to an area of law that involves complex medical, ethical, and emotional considerations.