India's Legal Battle
From Criminalisation to Partial Recognition
A comprehensive analysis of every landmark case, every IPC and BNS provision, and the critical gap between what the Supreme Court has declared and what actually happens in Indian hospitals, and why none of it goes far enough.
Aruna Shanbaug: first recognition of passive euthanasia by Supreme Court
Landmark Constitution Bench
2018
Common Cause v. UOI: Right to die with dignity as fundamental right under Art. 21
Active Euthanasia Status
Illegal
Criminalised under BNS Sections 100, 101, 108: active euthanasia and PAS remain prohibited
2026 Milestone
First
Harish Rana v. UOI: first-ever court-approved practical use of passive euthanasia in India
States Implementing
2
Only Kerala and Karnataka have begun implementing the Supreme Court's framework as of 2025
Parliamentary Legislation
Zero
No dedicated euthanasia statute exists: the entire framework rests on judge-made law
01
Historical Evolution
India's Euthanasia Jurisprudence: A Complete Timeline
From colonial-era criminal law to a 2026 Supreme Court first: every landmark moment in India's evolving relationship with the right to die. No parliamentary legislation exists. Everything below is judge-made law.
Pre-1860
Pre-Independence: Colonial Era
Indian Penal Code Enacted
IPC, 1860: Sections 302, 304, 306, 309
British colonial law encoded the criminal framework that India would inherit. Section 309 criminalised attempted suicide. Section 306 criminalised abetment of suicide. Sections 302 and 304 treated any intentional causing of death as murder or culpable homicide. No exceptions for compassionate intent. This colonial framework remained untouched for over 150 years.
Inherited legal position: All forms of assisted dying: criminal.
1985
1985: High Court
Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra
Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court held that the right to life under Article 21 could include a right to die, particularly for individuals suffering from terminal illness or extreme, incurable pain. This was a progressive first signal from the judiciary. The Delhi High Court separately condemned Section 309 IPC as "an anachronism unworthy of society."
Holding: Art. 21 may include right to die. Later overruled by SC.
1994
1994: Supreme Court
P. Rathinam v. Union of India
AIR 1994 SC 1844 — 2-Judge Bench
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that Section 309 IPC violated Article 21. It ruled that the right to life included a right to die and struck down Section 309 as unconstitutional. This was a historic moment — but short-lived. The Supreme Court called the section "irrational and cruel."
Holding: S.309 void; Art. 21 includes right to die. Later OVERRULED.
1996
1996: 5-Judge Constitution Bench
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab
(1996) 2 SCC 648 — 5-Judge Bench
A 5-judge Constitution Bench overruled P. Rathinam entirely. The Court held that Article 21 protects life — it cannot be interpreted to include a right to die or a right to be killed. S.309 was upheld as constitutional. The Court stated: "The right to life is a natural right embodied in Article 21 but suicide is an unnatural extinction of life." This judgment became the foundational barrier to euthanasia for over two decades.
Holding: Art. 21 does NOT include right to die. S.309 constitutional. Foundational barrier.
2006
2006: Law Commission
Law Commission 196th Report
Law Commission of India, 196th Report
The Law Commission of India recommended that Parliament consider legalising passive euthanasia under strict guidelines. It distinguished between "mercy killing" and "withdrawal of life support," arguing that refusing treatment which merely prolongs dying is a "lawful omission." Parliament took no action. The Report flagged that India needed legislation — a call that would go unheeded for decades.
Recommendation: Parliament should legislate passive euthanasia. Parliament did not act.
2009
2009: The Petition
Aruna Shanbaug Petition Filed
Journalist Pinki Virani petitions Supreme Court
Activist and journalist Pinki Virani filed a petition in the Supreme Court on behalf of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug — a nurse at KEM Hospital, Mumbai. Aruna had been in a persistent vegetative state since 1973, when she was sexually assaulted by a ward boy who strangled her with a chain, cutting off oxygen to her brain. She had spent 36 years in PVS by this point.
2011
2011: Landmark Ruling
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India
(2011) 4 SCC 454 — 2-Judge Bench
The Supreme Court permitted passive euthanasia for the first time in India — under strict judicial supervision. The Court declined to grant Aruna's immediate plea (as the hospital staff caring for her opposed withdrawal), but laid down landmark legal principles. It established that passive euthanasia is constitutionally permissible under High Court oversight. The ruling called for Parliament to legislate.
Holding: Passive euthanasia constitutionally permissible under strict conditions. HC oversight required. First recognition.
2012
2012: Law Commission
Law Commission 241st Report
Law Commission — "Passive Euthanasia: A Relook"
The 241st Report reiterated support for passive euthanasia on humanitarian grounds. It prepared a draft Bill titled "The Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patients (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) Bill." The Bill was referred to the Ministry of Health in June 2014. It was never enacted. Parliament remained silent.
Draft Bill prepared. Never enacted. Parliament did not act.
2015
2015: Aruna Shanbaug
Aruna Shanbaug Dies Naturally
KEM Hospital, Mumbai — May 18, 2015
Aruna Shanbaug died of pneumonia at KEM Hospital, Mumbai — 42 years after her assault in 1973. She died naturally, without the withdrawal of treatment that the petition had sought. She never regained consciousness. Her case had galvanised India's passive euthanasia jurisprudence, yet she herself never benefited from the rights the court had articulated.
2017
2017: Foundational Precedent
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
AIR 2017 SC 4161 — 9-Judge Constitution Bench
A 9-judge Constitution Bench unanimously held that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. Critically, it held that privacy includes bodily autonomy, self-determination, and personal liberty. This judgment became the constitutional foundation for the argument that a person's decision about their own end of life cannot be overridden by the state.
Holding: Privacy, bodily autonomy, and self-determination are fundamental rights. Critical foundation for euthanasia rights.
A 5-judge Constitution Bench unanimously held that the right to die with dignity is an inseparable facet of the right to life under Article 21. The Court legalised passive euthanasia and declared that individuals could execute Advance Medical Directives (living wills). A complex three-tier procedural framework was established. This was India's most important euthanasia judgment.
Holding: Right to die with dignity = fundamental right under Art. 21. Passive euthanasia legal. Living wills valid.
2018
2018: Mental Health Reform
Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 Comes into Force
Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 — enacted July 2018
Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 provided that any person who attempts suicide shall be presumed, unless proved otherwise, to have severe stress — and shall NOT be tried and punished under Section 309 IPC. This effectively decriminalised attempted suicide for practical purposes, though Section 309 formally remained on the statute book.
Effect: S.309 IPC neutered in practice. Attempted suicide decriminalised de facto.
2019
2019: Implementation Problem
ISCCM Application: Guidelines Are Unworkable
M.A. No. 1699 of 2019 in W.P. (C) No. 215 of 2005
The Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine (ISCCM) filed a miscellaneous application pointing out that the procedural framework laid down in Common Cause 2018 was "onerous," "cumbersome," and "unworkable on the ground." Evidence showed that the three-tier process — hospital board, district collector board, Judicial Magistrate — had been used ZERO times since the 2018 judgment. The Right the Court had created existed only on paper.
Crisis: Not a single case processed under the 2018 framework. The right existed only in theory.
2023
2023: Procedural Simplification
Common Cause — Modification (2023 SCC OnLine SC 99)
A fresh 5-judge bench significantly simplified the procedure. The Judicial Magistrate requirement was removed. A notary or gazetted officer now suffices for attestation. The experience requirement for medical board members was reduced. Two medical boards (primary and secondary) replace the three-tier system. Decisions must be communicated within 48 hours.
Reform: Magistrate removed, notary/gazetted officer sufficient. Boards must decide within 48 hours. More workable.
2024
2024: Criminal Law Replaced
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Replaces IPC
BNS, 2023 — Came into force July 1, 2024
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, effective July 1, 2024. Section 309 IPC (attempted suicide) was formally abolished — not included in the BNS. However, BNS Sections 100 and 101 continue to classify intentional causing of death as murder or culpable homicide, and Section 108 penalises abetment of suicide. Active euthanasia and PAS remain criminalised under the new code.
S.309 formally abolished. Active euthanasia / PAS remain illegal under BNS S.100, 101, 108.
2026
2026: BREAKING: First Practical Application
Harish Rana v. Union of India & Ors.
Supreme Court — Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan — March 2026
In a historic first, the Supreme Court permitted the withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) for Harish Rana — a 32-year-old man who had been in a persistent vegetative state since a 2013 fall. This is the first time the passive euthanasia framework established in 2018 was actually applied in practice.
Holding: CANH = medical treatment. Passive euthanasia permitted. First real-world application since 2018. Active euthanasia still illegal.
Illustrative score out of 100 — reflecting cumulative judicial recognition of end-of-life autonomy rights in India
02
Constitutional & Legal Architecture
The Legal Framework: Article 21 and Its Evolution
India has no dedicated euthanasia statute. The entire framework rests on judicial interpretations of Article 21. Here is precisely how the right has been built — and where it stops.
Article 21 — The Constitutional Core
The Text of Article 21
"No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."
The Constitution makes no mention of dying, death, or euthanasia. Every right in this space has been judicially constructed from these 24 words through decades of interpretation.
How the Court Has Read Article 21
1
1978 — Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India: Article 21 cannot be read narrowly. "Life" includes the right to live with basic human dignity — not mere animal existence.
2
1996 — Gian Kaur (5 Judges): Right to life includes "right to live with human dignity" up to the point of death. But this does NOT include a right to die or be killed.
3
2017 — Puttaswamy (9 Judges): Privacy as fundamental right encompasses bodily integrity and individual autonomy over personal decisions. Critical constitutional foundation.
4
2018 — Common Cause (5 Judges): Right to live with dignity under Article 21 inherently includes the right to die with dignity. Passive euthanasia and advance directives declared lawful.
5
2026 — Harish Rana: First practical application. CANH = medical treatment. Withdrawal of nutrition and hydration from a PVS patient is consistent with the right to die with dignity.
Other Constitutional Articles Engaged
How it applies: The Common Cause Court noted that conditioning access to a dignified death on arbitrary procedural requirements — or restricting it to certain diagnoses only — creates unequal treatment.
Kahu's argument: Limiting the right to die to "terminal illness" or "PVS" while denying it to those suffering emotionally, existentially, or from non-terminal chronic conditions violates Article 14.
How it applies: Freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) includes the freedom of individuals to express their most fundamental decisions about their own existence.
Kahu's argument: The State's prohibition on voluntary active euthanasia and PAS silences the most fundamental personal decision a competent adult can make. This violates Article 19(1)(a).
How it applies: Under Aruna Shanbaug 2011, High Courts were empowered under Article 226 to approve withdrawal of life support from incompetent patients.
Current position 2026: Under the 2023 simplified guidelines, hospital-level boards can now decide. High Court oversight remains available if the secondary board refuses permission, but is no longer mandatory in all cases.
How it applies: The original Common Cause petition was filed as a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 215 of 2005 directly before the Supreme Court under Article 32. This empowered the Court to issue binding guidelines that function as law in the absence of legislation.
Kahu's PIL: Kahu Advocacy Foundation is filing its PIL under Article 32. A PIL does not require personal injury — it can be filed in the public interest to seek constitutional interpretation and direction to the government.
Constitutional Arguments in India's Euthanasia Cases
Articles invoked across all major SC judgments 1994–2026
The Precedent Chain: How Each Case Built the Next
Judicial Progress Score: Article 21 and the Right to Die (1994–2026)
How each landmark case moved India's legal position — a 32-year judicial evolution
03
Current Legal Status — India 2026
What is Legal, What is Not, and Why the Gap Matters
India's current framework creates a narrow window of permitted end-of-life choice. Here is the precise boundary — and what lies beyond it.
Legal in India (2026)
What IS Permitted
Passive euthanasia — withdrawal / withholding of life-sustaining treatment
Advance Medical Directives (living wills) by competent adults
Withdrawal of CANH (clinically assisted nutrition and hydration) — confirmed 2026
Refusal of treatment by a mentally competent adult
Palliative sedation for symptom relief (not with intent to cause death)
High Court / SC approval for incompetent patients where no directive exists
Illegal in India (2026)
What is NOT Permitted
Active euthanasia — any deliberate lethal act, even at patient's request
Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) — prescribing lethal medication for self-administration
Any form of assisted dying for non-terminal, non-PVS conditions
Euthanasia for psychological, emotional, or existential suffering without physical diagnosis
End-of-life facilities or "dignity clinics" — no legal basis exists
Any form of assisted dying without the multi-tier medical board process
How Passive Euthanasia Currently Works: The Step-by-Step Procedure
Scenario A: Patient Has a Living Will
1
Living Will Verified
The treating physician verifies the advance directive's authenticity. The will must have been signed by the executor in the presence of two witnesses and attested by a notary or gazetted officer (2023 reform: Judicial Magistrate no longer required).
2
Patient Confirmed Terminal / Irreversible
The treating doctor confirms the patient is terminally ill or in an irreversible condition with no reasonable prospect of recovery, and that the will's conditions have been met.
3
Primary Medical Board — Hospital Level
The hospital constitutes a Primary Medical Board: Head of the treating department + at least two specialist doctors with minimum 5 years' experience. Board gives a preliminary opinion within 48 hours.
4
Secondary Medical Board — District Level
A Secondary Medical Board is constituted — one doctor nominated by the District Chief Medical Officer and two specialists. Reviews the Primary Board's findings. Both boards communicate decision within 48 hours.
5
Intimation to JMFC + Family Consent
The boards communicate their decision to the local Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) for information. Family consent is obtained. If the patient is incapacitated, consent is obtained from the person named in the directive.
6
Withdrawal Under Palliative Care
Life-sustaining treatment is withdrawn under palliative supervision. The 2026 Harish Rana judgment clarified that CANH qualifies as medical treatment that can be withdrawn.
!
If Secondary Board Refuses
The patient's relatives, nominee, or treating hospital may approach the High Court under Article 226. The HC constitutes an independent medical board and decides in the patient's best interest.
Scenario B: No Living Will Exists
1
Family / Doctor Initiates
Family members, next of kin, or treating doctors approach the hospital when a patient is in PVS or terminally ill with no chance of recovery and no advance directive.
2
Hospital Medical Board Discussion
The Hospital Medical Board discusses with the family physician and family members. Minutes are recorded. Family is informed of pros and cons. Family must consent in writing.
3
Same Two-Board Process
The same Primary and Secondary Board process applies as in Scenario A. Only the consent mechanism differs (family/guardian rather than directive).
4
Boards Decide in Patient's Best Interest
Where no advance directive exists, the standard shifts from "what did the patient want" to "what is in the patient's best interest." Medical evidence of irreversibility is central.
The Critical Limitation: Who is Excluded
The entire framework applies ONLY to patients in persistent vegetative state or with terminal illness. It does not cover: any person suffering from non-terminal chronic pain; any person with psychiatric, emotional, or existential suffering; any conscious, competent adult who simply wishes to exit unbearable suffering; any condition not medically diagnosed as terminal or causing PVS.
How to Execute a Living Will (2023 Procedure)
Written document specifying conditions under which treatment should be withheld
Signed in the presence of two witnesses
Attested by a notary public OR gazetted officer
Notary/officer must confirm voluntary execution with full understanding
Stored with family physician or in digital health records where available
Can be revoked at any time by the executor while competent
04
Criminal Law Framework
IPC to BNS: The Criminal Law Barrier to Euthanasia
On July 1, 2024, India's 164-year-old Indian Penal Code was replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Here is exactly what changed — and what stayed the same — for euthanasia law.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Now Repealed
Section 302 — Murder
Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. Applied to any person who administered a lethal substance to a patient — even with the patient's explicit, repeated consent.
Section 304 — Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder
Applied when death was caused voluntarily at the request of a patient. Punishment up to 10 years imprisonment or life. Covered cases where a doctor assisted in dying at the patient's request without the "premeditated malice" required for S.302.
Section 306 — Abetment of Suicide
"If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years." Applied to PAS — a doctor prescribing a lethal dose faced up to 10 years.
Section 309 — Attempt to Commit Suicide
Criminalised the act of trying to die. Neutered by MHCA 2017. REPEALED entirely by BNS 2024.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — In Force from July 1, 2024
Section 100 — Murder (Replaces IPC S.302)
Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life. Substantively identical to IPC S.302. Active euthanasia remains murder or culpable homicide under the BNS.
Section 101 — Culpable Homicide (Replaces IPC S.304)
Retains the same framework as IPC S.304. Active euthanasia at a patient's request remains covered. No exemption for compassionate intent.
Section 108 — Abetment of Suicide (Replaces IPC S.306)
Retains criminalisation of abetment of suicide. PAS remains an offence. A doctor who prescribes a lethal medication for a patient to self-administer faces prosecution. Punishment: up to 10 years imprisonment.
Section 309 — ABOLISHED
The BNS does NOT include a provision equivalent to IPC Section 309. Attempted suicide is formally decriminalised. Note: BNS S.224 creates a narrow exception for coercive suicide threats.
Provision
IPC (Pre-2024)
BNS (Post July 2024)
Change
Effect on Euthanasia
Attempted Suicide
S.309 — Criminal offence, up to 1 yr
Abolished. Not in BNS
Decriminalised
No prosecution for attempt to suicide
Assisted Suicide / PAS
S.306 — Up to 10 yrs imprisonment
S.108 — Up to 10 yrs imprisonment
No change
PAS still fully criminalised for doctors
Active Euthanasia
S.302 / S.304 — Murder / CH
S.100 / S.101 — Murder / CH
No change
Active euthanasia still murder under BNS
Passive Euthanasia (approved)
Permitted under Common Cause framework
Permitted under Common Cause framework
No change needed
Passive euthanasia via procedure = lawful
Compassionate Exemption
None in IPC
None in BNS
Still absent
No statutory exemption for intent to relieve suffering
The Fundamental Problem with the BNS for Euthanasia
Despite replacing a 164-year-old colonial statute, the BNS made no attempt to introduce a compassionate intent exception, a voluntary consent defence, or any exemption for assisted dying. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is as hostile to active euthanasia and PAS as the Indian Penal Code it replaced. The criminal law barrier remains identical in substance. Only the section numbers have changed. Parliament has had every opportunity to legislate — it has chosen not to.
05
The Reality on the Ground
The Catastrophic Gap Between Law and Practice
Even the limited rights India has — passive euthanasia and advance directives — are virtually inaccessible in practice. This section documents the evidence.
0
Cases processed under the 2018 Common Cause framework between 2018 and 2023 — before simplification
2
States (Kerala and Karnataka) that have begun implementing the Supreme Court framework as of 2025
36
States and UTs in India — the remaining 34 have no implementation infrastructure for living wills
The Seven Layers of the Implementation Gap
The original 2018 Common Cause guidelines required a three-tier approval process: hospital board, district collector board, and Judicial Magistrate. Research and the ISCCM's own 2019 application confirmed that not a single patient accessed the framework in the five years after the 2018 judgment. A right that no one can exercise is not a right — it is a promise.
As of 2025, Karnataka issued a circular on January 30, 2025 — seven years after the Supreme Court judgment — to finally set up primary and secondary medical boards in hospitals. Kerala set up its second "Living Will" counter only in June 2025. The other 34 states and Union Territories have taken no administrative steps.
Multiple studies document that awareness of advance directives, living wills, and the passive euthanasia framework is extremely low among both the general population and healthcare professionals in India. Patients cannot exercise rights they have never heard of.
Despite the legal framework, many doctors in India continue to be reluctant to discuss advance directives or end-of-life options with patients — due to "legal ambiguity, cultural sensitivities, and fear of litigation." Without a dedicated statute, doctors rely entirely on judge-made guidelines. Any deviation from procedure carries criminal liability risk under BNS S.100, 101, 108.
After the 2018 Common Cause judgment, "Left Against Medical Advice" (LAMA) and "Terminal Discharge" rates in ICUs actually increased — as revealed by INDICAPS I and II studies. Families, unable to navigate the complex legal framework, simply took patients home to die — outside the system entirely.
Both Aruna Shanbaug (2011) and Common Cause (2018) explicitly called on Parliament to enact legislation. Parliament has produced nothing. The entire framework is court-made, navigable only by families with the resources and persistence to sustain prolonged litigation.
The passive euthanasia framework requires trained medical specialists, functioning hospital-level medical boards, district-level board coordination, and awareness of legal procedures. Healthcare disparities make the advance care planning framework inaccessible to the majority of India's 1.4 billion people. The right effectively exists only for the urban, educated, and well-resourced.
Implementation Gap: Law vs Reality (India 2026)
Score out of 100 — gap between legal recognition and actual access
State-Level Implementation of Common Cause Framework (2026)
Karnataka — medical boards setup (Jan 2025)Partial
Kerala — living will counters (Jun 2025)Partial
Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Delhi — no actionMinimal
Remaining 30+ states / UTsNone
Public awareness of living wills (general population)Near Zero
06
Breaking — March 2026
Harish Rana v. Union of India (2026)
The first-ever practical application of India's passive euthanasia framework — seven years after it was declared a fundamental right. A landmark ruling that reveals both progress and the continuing limits of India's law.
Historic First — India's Passive Euthanasia Framework Finally Used
Harish Rana v. Union of India & Others
Supreme Court of India — Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan — March 2026
For the first time since the right to die with dignity was declared a fundamental right in 2018, the Supreme Court of India actually authorised withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for a patient in a persistent vegetative state. The Court allowed the withdrawal of Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) — tube feeding administered through a surgically installed gastrostomy tube — for Harish Rana, a 32-year-old man who had been in PVS for over 13 years following a fall in 2013.
The Court clarified that CANH refers to all forms of enteral and parenteral nutrition administered upon clinical indication — and qualifies as "medical treatment" that can be withdrawn. AIIMS was directed to provide palliative care to ensure comfort and dignity in the final stage of life.
Patient
Harish Rana, 32
PVS Duration
13 years (since 2013)
Treatment Type
CANH via PEG tube
HC Decision
Refused (2024)
SC Decision
Permitted (2026)
Significance
First-ever use of 2018 framework
Why the Delhi High Court Got It Wrong (2024)
HC Reasoning — Rejected by Supreme Court
In July 2024, the Delhi High Court refused the family's petition on the ground that Harish was not on a mechanical ventilator — therefore he was "able to sustain himself without any extra or external medical aid." The HC treated a PEG tube delivering clinically administered nutrition as categorically different from a ventilator.
SC's Clarification — What Changed
The Supreme Court rejected the HC's reasoning entirely. Harish's "survival was wholly dependent on clinical nutrition and hydration delivered through a surgically installed device." The HC's reasoning excluded an entire class of PVS patients from the passive euthanasia framework. The SC held that CANH qualifies as medical treatment — and can be withdrawn.
What the Case Reveals About the System
1
The family required 13 years of suffering, multiple court appearances, and involvement of two separate medical boards at AIIMS before the right was exercised.
2
The Delhi High Court itself misinterpreted the Common Cause framework — demonstrating that even judges are uncertain about the law's application. Without a statute, interpretation is inconsistent.
3
Parliament has produced no legislation despite explicit calls from the Supreme Court in 2011, 2018, and 2026.
4
The case applies only to PVS patients. Millions suffering from terminal illness, chronic unbearable conditions, or existential suffering remain entirely outside this framework.
The Procedural Journey of Harish Rana
2013
Fall and Injury
Harish Rana suffered severe brain injury after falling from the fourth floor. He sustained diffuse axonal injury, quadriplegia, and was placed on CANH. He never regained consciousness.
2024
Delhi High Court — Refused
His father approached the Delhi High Court seeking permission to withdraw treatment. The HC refused — ruling he was "not terminally ill" and not on a ventilator. SLP filed before the Supreme Court in August 2024.
Nov 2024
SC Defers — Asks UP Government to Help
On Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud's last day (November 2024), the bench suggested UP Government cover medical expenses. The family had to return to Court in October 2025.
Dec 2025
Medical Boards Constituted
Primary Board visited Harish at home on December 11, 2025. Secondary Board at AIIMS reported on December 17 — confirmed permanent vegetative state, negligible chance of recovery.
2026
Supreme Court Permits Withdrawal
Justices Pardiwala and Viswanathan authorised passive euthanasia. CANH declared medical treatment. Withdrawal to be conducted at AIIMS with full palliative care. India's first court-approved passive euthanasia — 8 years after the right was recognised.
What Harish Rana Does NOT Change
Active euthanasia and PAS remain illegal. The case applies only to PVS patients. Conscious, competent adults suffering unbearably have no legal route to a dignified exit. The judgment explicitly calls for Parliament to legislate.
07
Kahu Advocacy Foundation — The PIL
Why None of This Goes Far Enough
India has taken cautious, procedurally heavy steps toward recognising the right to die. But the system still forces competent adults — who are suffering unbearably — to keep living against their will. Here is why Kahu's PIL goes further, and why it must.
Where Current Law Falls Short
The Common Cause framework applies only to patients in PVS or with terminal illness in a hospital setting. The following categories of suffering persons are entirely excluded:
X
Non-terminal chronic pain sufferers — People living with decades of debilitating physical pain that is not diagnosed as "terminal" cannot access any end-of-life option.
X
Psychiatric and existential suffering — People with severe, treatment-resistant depression or chronic anxiety — who suffer as profoundly as those with physical illness — have zero legal recourse.
X
Conscious, competent adults — The entire framework is oriented toward incapacitated patients in PVS. A fully conscious, competent person who finds their life unbearable has no legal option whatsoever.
X
Rural and low-income Indians — Even the limited passive euthanasia right is practically inaccessible to the 65% of India that lives in rural areas.
Kahu's PIL argues that conditioning the right to exit suffering on arbitrary medical prerequisites violates Articles 14 and 21:
1
You do not need a diagnosis to suffer. Suffering is not conditional on what a doctor certifies. A person who suffers existentially suffers just as absolutely as one with a terminal cancer diagnosis.
2
You do not need permission to endure suffering. The State does not require you to justify why you are in pain before allowing you to live with it. By the same logic, you should not need to justify why your pain is sufficient before being permitted to exit it.
3
Waiting periods and counselling are delay tactics. Mandatory waiting periods are not safeguards — they are bureaucratic instruments of delay designed to deny access to a fundamental right.
4
The real safeguard is competence, not diagnosis. The only morally necessary prerequisite is that the person is a mentally competent adult acting voluntarily and without duress.
Kahu's PIL asks the Supreme Court to go beyond Common Cause and recognise active euthanasia and PAS as constitutional rights:
A
Declare Art. 21 includes VAE / PAS
Every competent adult has the fundamental right to choose to end their life through voluntary active euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide — without mandatory medical preconditions.
B
Read Down BNS S.100, 101, 108
Sections 100, 101, and 108 of the BNS shall not apply to compassionate, consensual acts of assisted dying upon explicit, voluntary, informed adult request.
C
Direct Establishment of Dignity Facilities
Direct the Government to establish — or facilitate — accessible, restriction-free facilities offering instant, painless, guaranteed, dignified ways to end life, with no waiting periods or mandatory justifications.
D
Declare Denial a Violation of Arts. 14 and 21
Conditioning access on arbitrary medical criteria violates equal protection. Denial of access to a humane exit from suffering violates the right to life with dignity.
India vs Colombia: The Court-Driven Model
Why Colombia Is India's Most Relevant Precedent
Colombia legalised euthanasia not through Parliament, but through its Constitutional Court — in 1997 and expanded in 2021. A court declared that continuing to live in intolerable conditions without a humane exit violates dignity. India's Supreme Court has already gone partway down this path with Common Cause. Kahu's PIL asks the Court to take the next constitutional step — exactly as Colombia's Court did.
India's Legal Gap Relative to Global Standards (2026)
Comparing India's current framework against jurisdictions with full legal assisted dying
Parliament's Silence = Active Harm
Every day that Parliament does not legislate, an estimated 450+ people in India take their own lives — often through violent, painful methods — because a humane option is denied to them. Parliamentary silence is not neutrality. It is an active choice to impose suffering on those who want to exit it.
Your Signature Has Legal Weight
Sign the Petition. Power the PIL.
When enough people sign, Kahu Advocacy Foundation files the Public Interest Litigation before the Supreme Court of India. India has the framework. It needs the courage. Your signature provides the mandate.
