SC Approves Passive Euthanasia in Harish Rana Case
In News
What Happened
Why It Matters
Background
History & Context
What Changed
- ▶
BEFORE: Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) was ambiguously viewed, with the Delhi High Court ruling that withdrawing it would amount to starving the patient to death rather than passive euthanasia. NOW: The Supreme Court explicitly classified CANH as 'medical treatment' that can be legally withdrawn under passive euthanasia guidelines.
- ▶
BEFORE: The 2018 Common Cause framework lacked a practical precedent for non-voluntary passive euthanasia cases where the patient had no Advance Medical Directive (Living Will). NOW: The Supreme Court established a practical 'best interests' paradigm, ensuring decisions weigh irreversible clinical futility alongside the patient's presumed wishes and values.
- ▶
BEFORE: End-of-life care decisions often stalled due to legal ambiguity, fear of litigation among medical professionals, and the lack of a structured procedural template. NOW: The court successfully modeled a structured institutional process, using medical boards at AIIMS to verify irreversible brain damage before authorizing a systematic withdrawal of care.
Prelims Angle
NCERT Connection
Practice Questions
Q1
Correct Statement(s)Which of the following statements is/are correct regarding the Supreme Court's 2026 judgment in the Harish Rana case? 1. The Supreme Court ruled that Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) is a basic human necessity and cannot be classified as medical treatment. 2. The judgment marks the first instance of applying the passive euthanasia framework laid down in the 2018 Common Cause case to a specific patient.